Personnel Advisory & Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

It is 7PM. The date is Wednesday, 04/02/2025. This is a regular meeting of the city of Hudson, Ohio Charter Review Commission. This I believe is our fifth meeting in our series. I will start with a roll call. Mr. Hall? Here. Ms. Griffith? Here. Mr. Hoover? Here. Ms. McCoy?

Here.

Miss Norman? Here. Mister Ryan? Here. Miss Fiddleri? Here. Mister Treynor? Here. Mister Kegler here. And we also have, mister Pitchford, city solicitor and special counsel, as well as several members of the public.

Mr. Foster is in the wings.

Van Wyck is traveling for business, so I'm filling in his sleeves.

And by the podium, sorry about that. And we also have council president, Foster.

Oh, yes.

Mister Foster, are you serving in his stead or

I am serving in his stead.

Okay. There's a seat here for

council liaison.

Got it.

I think for the record that And And to I'm the here as well as other members of the public. And That's item two, the roll call. Item three is approval of minutes. We have received the, draft minutes of the 03/05/2025, regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Moved by miss Norman. Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Seconded by miss Griffith. Mr. Trainer? Aye. Ms. Griffith? Aye. Ms. McCoy?

Yes.

Ms. Bettillary?

Yes.

Ms. Norman? Yes. Mr. Hoover? Yes. Mister Ryan? Aye. And mister Kegler? Yes.

Those?

Favor zero post. Next is item four in our agenda, commissioner comments. I had a few just to level set, update us where we are. We have to date reviewed 11 of the 16 articles of the charter. That sounds way better than it actually is.

We have five articles left. We have three on the agenda tonight. I don't per minute think we'll be able to get through them all. But those would be articles five, eight and nine. Five is the manager, eight is essentially staff and nine is planning.

And then the remaining articles after that are articles three and four, three is counsel and four is the man or the mayor. Just a review, we have received an updated copy of our list. Aparna did add a an exported date on the bottom left hand corner of each sheet so that if you ever happen to drop all your papers and can't remember which list is which, look for the ones that are, that have the export date of March 27, which was last Thursday, I believe she sent it out. The list is currently five pages long. I looked through it, updated for her what we had done at the last meeting to the best of my ability.

If you see anything that I missed, feel free to, let me know. I saw one thing that I missed already, and I will note that for her next time. And, as I said, the list is five pages long. I did not see any new comments from the last meeting, so I believe we're up to date and caught up with article any comments that we might have received on articles that we have already reviewed. I would like to suggest that the that the commission proceed through reviewing the remaining articles before, reviewing draft text.

I found we spent a we, Marshall had brought something, no fault to him. He brought something last, last meeting, and we reviewed it and it took up a good bit of time. And just to make best use of our time, I'd suggest that we go through everything first and then bring back the the text. He can send them to us, but we and we can have him take a look at them, whenever he wants to get them to us. But my suggestion was was going to be that we review them all at once once we're we've made our full pass through.

And to review what we have actually received, or what we've reviewed so far, we've actually asked for, changes to be drafted to five different sections of the charter. Those are articles six point o three, six point o four, seven point o one, and then all three sections within article twelve, twelve point o one, twelve point o two. Have also received a draft text or draft suggestions from miss Norman regarding the preamble. That's not a number of section of the charter, but it is part of it. And I'll leave it to the commission whether we wish to review that as a suggestion first time or hold it till we we've gotten through all the articles first.

A part ahead asked me next if, we would like to do, set a deadline for, when suggestions will be accepted until they've been accepted kind of on a rolling basis. We've been meeting since early to mid January, so that's three months. My suggestion in absence of anything else would be was going to be the end of this month, April. That would basically then mean we could, focus with some confidence and she could then publish saying, if you have suggestions for, changes to sections of the charter, please get those suggestions in on or before, the end the last day in April. Is everyone alright with that?

Yes.

Yes. Our next meeting will be in two weeks, which is on April 16. That will be our sixth meeting. We have four meetings scheduled after that, May 7, June 4, June 18, and June 25. If we need them, those are all at least two, three, or four weeks apart with the exception of the last meeting on June 25. If we need it all and we don't finish by that last meeting. It's kind of like a backup if we need it. Hopefully, we won't. Those were the items I had to bring to everyone's attention. Do any other commissioners have any or our council liaison substitute have any items to report to the commission.

Mister chair, just one note that on April 16, I hope to be out of the country, so I will not be in attendance. Okay. Noted.

Anyone else? Okay. We will move on then to article, section five on our agenda. This is the first of two public comment sections, on our agenda. The commission welcomes comments from the public regarding, any item that we have before us.

If you have already submitted comments and suggestions, you're welcome to summarize those. If you are providing suggestions and you choose to present those, verbally, we would encourage you to follow-up and submit them by writing either by email or fax or however you'd like to do it or hand over the paper tonight if you've already got it, done so we can get it included on the list. I would ask anyone who wishes to speak to please identify yourself by name and address and approach the podium, speak to the chair, and try and be as concise as possible with your comments. Would anyone like to speak to the commission? Yes, ma'am.

Good evening. I'm Carleen Welch, 992 Silverberry Lane. I'm Vice President of the Board of Trustees of the Hudson Library and Historical Society, and I'm here in the absence of Board President Attorney Basil Musnoff and on behalf of a unanimous Board of Trustees to speak out against revisions to Article seven, Section 7.01 that have been proposed by council members Foster and Bandwig. Those proposed revisions seek to dictate who a private Section five zero one(three) nonprofit organization how it should conduct the election of its own governing board. The library is in part funded by taxpayers through tax levies voted on by Hudson residents.

The library itself has no taxing authority, so Ohio statute allows the library to request a taxing authority like city council to place onto the ballot a levy proposal properly approved by the Library Board of Trustees. By law, this role of city council is ministerial. The amount of turn in terms of the levy to be presented to the voters are determined by the library board of trustees, not by city council. The Ohio legislature does not give city's council discretion as to whether to place a levy on the ballot or the power to place conditions on such placement. But this is exactly what the revisions seek to do.

These councilmen are trying to misuse this mandatory ministerial duty to direct how the library, which is not an arm of the city government, to conduct its business. By these charter revisions, city council would bestow upon itself out of thin air powers that go far beyond those allowed by Ohio legislature, and this must be halted here and now. Thank you.

Why don't we get through the comments first and then if anyone has any questions for any of the speakers, we can do that. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Councilwoman Goetz.

Hi. I'm Patricia Goetz, and I live at 1516 College Street here in Hudson, and I am a city council person. I have five things I'd like to talk about, some of which I did send you, but I will retype them and make sure that you get them. The first one is that I feel that we should change the swearing in of council members and mayor to the first Tuesday in January after January 1. Some of the cities around us like Cuyahoga Falls require a certificate of election before swearing in.

And I think that that would be a good idea. There was a lot of difficulties with the last election as to whether or not people should be seated or not. And a number of us did get our certificate and were able to be seated on time. But the generally, the Board of Elections doesn't have the certificates ready for the first week in December or even the second week in December. So I think that, that should be considered.

The second thing I want you to think about is that 40% of Hudson residents, it might be more now that people are working from home, but it had been 40% paid income tax to Hudson. Property tax from those people that don't work in Hudson is only 5%. So that there is a big chunk of our residents who really are not putting much into our city coffers. We have a tax rate of 2%, Akron is 2.5, Fairlawn is 2.5, Springdale is 2.5, Macedonia is 2.5, Stowe, Twinsburg and Green are two. Macedonia actually gives a 0.25% refund to the income tax, its credit that is if the resident lives in the city.

So I would suggest that we think about raising our income tax rate to 2.25% and give that refund of 0.25% to those that work in Hudson. My third thing is thinking about that I think we should have an elected solicitor. Stowe, Greene, Macedonia, Cuyahoga Falls, Fairlawn all have elected solicitors. This would make the solicitor law director more beholden to the voters. The next is about issues about censure.

We have nothing in our charter about this, and it's not been clear even under Robert's rules what should be done. The city of Akron has three phases. They have private counseling first, a center, and then a public center with a written resolution. The American Legal Publishing Company talks about how the accused should be given an opportunity to be heard, present evidence, or examine any witnesses appearing in support of the charge. And of course, the accused would not vote on the question of the removal.

This also has a first censure and a second censure. There's a lot of different ways that you can do this. Or you can even look at how our state legislature does it, which is very complicated about how complaints are handled and filed with inspector general. But also what the state does is it lists a list of what would be the violations. And we don't have that either.

So I would suggest that you all think about that. Hopefully, we don't have to ever use that again. But I think that it makes good sense to have something in writing. The other thing is that we were told recently that a mayor cannot be censured in our city, but mayors can be censured. In November 2024, the mayor of University Heights was censured by their city council.

So that would have to be something that we would put into the charter. If you had a mayor that took a chair and put a hole in the wall, there's nothing we can do about that. If a mayor physically attacked a person, we could file a police report, but the mayor could not be removed right now unless they were recalled, and that would be over a number of months. So, again, that would be an area that I think we should think about. Hopefully, we'd never have to use that, but it's important to have something like that in place.

And then the last thing is a document that was submitted by Council President Foster about being liaison to city staff and that members of council should communicate with him before we communicate with staff members. If you look at section 3.03 about the president, there's nothing in there that says about council members having to send information to the president of the council. Talking to previous council members when Mr. Woolridge was president, it was never commonplace or expected. We are have been asked out of courtesy, and we do do this, send a carbon copy of any messages that we are sending to city staff to mister Sheridan as city manager so he knows what we're doing.

But I can't understand why we would also have to send it to the council president. So those are my thoughts. So I thank you for listening.

Just to clarify, you said five items. I'm sorry.

I'm good.

Of the five, the solicitor, elected solicitor, I see that on the list. I see the censure for council members on the list, but not for the mayor. And the others, I don't see. So will you be

I don't know if that was on the the income tax by

any The elected solicitor is on there.

Okay. The the income tax

Yep. Yes.

About the president of the council.

So would you be so kind to us the if we consider six dividing the censure into two, would you be so kind as to provide written of the other four? Thank you so much. And I forgot to ask miss Walsh if you'd be so kind as to submit something in writing. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?

If there are no more public comments, I plan on saying something. I can speak as a public resident.

Does any of the commissioners have questions for any of the speakers or need further clarification before we move on?

I do, mister Kigler. I just wondered I have not read in detail because I was out of town this week, I wondered if the library representatives could explain there's a a bill coming through the house that's gonna change the funding of libraries and what that anticipated impact would be on the balance of reliance on the local tax versus the state provided funds. My recollection is that the bill changes it from a percentage of general fund to a fixed sum of money that instead of being allocated to the individual library organizations, because they take different formats, will be sent to the counties on a population basis, and the county financial agency will be the one responsible for distributing those funds. I don't know that it is passed and it's on the governor's desk yet, but it suddenly in my once I heard about that, it suddenly changed the landscape for me. And I just wondered if if anyone from the library could respond to that.

Thank you. We just

I think you need it.

I'm so sorry. I apologize. Leslie Pollard, executive director of the Hudson Library and Historical Society. I live at 2356 Cypress Point Drive in Hudson. Thank you for that question. We just received this information from the Ohio Library Council yesterday, actually last night. They're they're analyzing that piece of legislation, which is a proposed house budget right now. It's it's still in play, but your basic analysis is correct and it would significantly impact the dollars that libraries would have. It would take off about a $100,000,000 for libraries in the state of Ohio. That's 251 libraries in the state.

And it it would make our funding in general more precarious if it's not a percentage of the general library fund, general library revenue fund. So right now, the Ohio Library Council will continue to lobby legislators and talk to senators. So again, as I said, it's in play. But it is definitely not in libraries' favors. And it will reduce the dollars that we are getting, which right now is about a third of our funding from the state. So but we we really don't know what what will happen ultimately, but it's not looking good.

So if I can follow-up on that question then. I mean, should it and and we may be asking the question too soon because it may not pass. But should it pass? I mean, do we need to reevaluate the way that we've been doing business? Because Hudson Library has been around as an organization for a very long time. I'm sure you're past a hundred years by now.

Since 1910.

Okay. Well, almost. Oh, yeah. No. Just More. Yeah. Yeah. More. Yeah. Sorry. You know, when you say 1970, it's like twenty years ago. I know. Fifty. Okay. I know. So so so getting back to my point on this, I mean, is it perhaps time for us, given that the library has come to the city many times to ask for that support that we reenvision sort of the way that we play the game so that we can continue to have funding for the library that's really serving the people and all of their interests.

I appreciate that comment, and I certainly hope that the city will continue to support us as you have for many years. I think it's a little early in the game to know what we're going to be facing, but we'll continue to keep you apprised of this as we move forward. In fact, I'm going to be leaving, at 08:30 or actually at 08:00 because I have an emergency Ohio Library Council meeting by Zoom at 08:30. Okay. So again, a little unclear about what's going to happen and how we're going to address it. Certainly, we're going to be reaching out to our community to lobby the legislature to try to let them know how critically important these dollars are that the 251 libraries in the state of Ohio. But I certainly appreciate the support.

Can I ask a follow-up question?

Certainly.

So if this were to pass, does that impact the ability of the library to seek a levy or does it have

No.

No impact?

No. Doesn't do that but it certainly reduces our funding on the state level.

Okay. Thank you.

Mister Fitzford.

And do you happen to, have the, the bill number? Or did you say it was in the state capital bill or It the state is. Operation It is just

passed by the house. I do not have the bill number at my fingertips. Do you guys know what it is? I apologize, I don't have that.

Is your understanding that it is the state, biannual operating budget?

It is a proposed budget

Yeah. Okay.

By the house.

Yep. Thank you.

But as I said, it's still in play.

There any other questions for any of our now three speakers?

Thank you very much.

Hearing none, and we'll come to Mr. Foster. It's up to you whether you wish to comment from there or as liaison substitute, however you wish to do it.

My name is Chris Foster. I live at 7303 Walters Road. I feel as though I need to correct some of the comments that were made up here, in particular, item number five from missus Gets. She stated that, well, I'm gonna say that she clearly insinuated that the mayor could have potentially put a hole in a wall with a chair or assaulted somebody, which I assure sorry. Not assaulted? No.

I said if anybody does that, anytime.

If any it's ins if you ask me, it insinuated very clearly that you had said the mayor could if the mayor pushed a chair into a wall and put a hole in it or physically attacked somebody, I will assure this body that that never happened. That never happened. Number six on her list stating that the council president never requested, required, or it was standard protocol for council members to email the council president. I will assure you that councilor, Bigham, myself, Skyler Sutton, other previous council members had been told not only by the former city manager, but by the council president, Bill Waldridge, and other council members that when there was any communication with staff, that they were to be copied on that communication. They weren't supposed to be for priorly informing the council president that they were going to communicate with staff, but that they were to be carbon copied at the time of communication.

And that was standard protocol. You should feel free to connect with any other council member, and you will find out that all council members, when they were seated, were told that that was standard protocol, and we followed those protocols. They have not been followed since. Thank you.

Mister Foster? Yes, ma'am.

To your question about the house bill

number For the record,

this is, Carlene Welch.

Carlene Welch 992Silverberry. Sub house bill 96.

SB 96? HB or SB?

HB.

HB. You.

Any other questions from commission members? Hearing none, now move on to we have no scheduled presentations under Item six on the agenda. We move to Item seven, which is review of charter articles. First article to review tonight is article five. We're starting at about 07:27PM.

Article five has is the manager, and there are, I believe, six sections in article five. Some are short, some are long. All will be fun, I am sure. I'll start. Section five point o one, appointment and qualifications.

A city manager shall be appointed by council and affirmative vote of not less than five members of council be necessary for the city manager's appointment. The city manager shall be chosen on the basis of professional qualifications and knowledge of the duties, standards, and accepted practices of the office. The city manager need not be a resident of the municipality at the time of appointment, but shall within a reasonable time after appointment establish and maintain residence in the municipality unless otherwise provided by counsel previously amended in 2020. Before we get into this, there was only Article five, we only have one suggested change and that was only for section, five point o four. So we have no outside suggestions, for this, section.

Does anyone have any comments, suggestions, changes, clarifications regarding this section?

I think this this all makes sense to me. Just one quick question. Just the Yep. The very last line, regarding, where the city manager's residence ends up. Unless otherwise provided by council, is that the correct way to say that or is that unless unless approved by council? I know I'm picking it straws here.

No, that language is acceptable. Essentially it says unless counsel waives the requirement. Sure. Okay.

All right. No further questions.

Before that, so we will move on to section two. Mr. Hall?

Section 5.02 suspension. The city manager may be suspended for just cause for a period of time not to exceed thirty calendar days, an affirmative vote of at least four members of council being necessary for any such suspension. Within three calendar days of being notified in writing of the suspension, the city manager may request a hearing before council at a public meeting as to whether there was just cause for the suspension and or whether the suspension shall be modified as to its duration and or whether the suspension shall be with or without pay. The president of council shall cause cause written notice of the suspension to be delivered to the city manager by hand delivery certified mail return receipt requested or by recognized commercial delivery service with a signed receipt of delivery returned to the sender. The city manager's request for a hearing shall be filed with the clerk of council.

At the close of the hearing, an affirmative vote of at least four members of council shall be required to vacate or modify the suspension in any manner. By the affirmative vote of at least four members of council, the council shall appoint a municipal employee to serve as acting city manager during any suspension of the city manager.

This this was, amended in 2020. I can't recall specifically, but I think in article five, there was a new section added and all the other sections were renumbered, but there was a lot of attention to the suspension in this section and the tenure and removal process after suspension in the next section. Any questions, clarifications?

I have a couple. Miss Norman? I I wonder if anyone has any questions about what just cause is. And one of the things I love to look for is consistency or lack thereof between other sections. And I'll just, for your reference, point the commission to 10 o one related to removal of appointees for office, which specifies about the fifth or so line line down.

You missed too many meetings, conviction of a felony, crime involving moral turpitude. Not sure we could call that out if we knew it. Violation of the oath of office or upon charges being set forth by a resolution of three members of council. So the bar is on one hand, it looks lower because it's not specific. And on the other hand, what is just cause? So that's that's my first stop.

Understand what you're saying. You're saying that it appears that the the standard for suspension of the manager is lower than for removal of the board of chambers.

Right. It's not specific. So so just cause, I would say a felony would be a good cause. And I guess I'm I'm just trying to point out we're not consistent from one section to another about the the level of of certainty a person has for knowing that you will be removed under these circumstances. Like, if I miss three meetings on the planning commission and don't tell anybody why, they could say, hey. We should get rid of her. She's not coming to do her job. If the if there are other reasons that are specific to a city manager, should we write them in? Should we change that to any cause? I mean, is he an at will employee?

And any cause is really justifiable if you have the votes of four council members, which is my next topic. But let's just stick with just cause right now.

Just quick clarifying question. If just for your point of the consistency, if you were to just so I understand your points. If you were to remove just cause and replace it with as described in section 5.03, would that then create that continuity that you're looking for? Because in five point o three, it's pretty descriptive, and if you just reference it in five point o two, you may achieve that result based on what I'm hearing.

You are yeah. That you are right about that. Now, you know what? This is what happens when you clear your dinner plate in between sections. You forget what you just read.

Sure. Sure.

Let me look at that here.

I could jump in while you're Sure. Norman. Don't doesn't five point o two speak to 10 o one? Meaning, if the city if the city manager's appointed by council and then this is removal of appointees in 10 o one Right. Do they talk to each other?

Well, no. It's this is specific, I think, the way I interpret it. Sure.

Mhmm.

The way I interpret it is that 10 o one is specific to all the other appointees. Planning

Oh, any board or committee. Right. Sorry. Sorry. Yep.

Yep. And the difference, mister Hall, is section five point o two is a suspension, not removal. And that's five point o three. And so that's why I would not have made connection. Mhmm. Sure. Okay. Yeah. So so I wonder if I'm gonna ask the question again. Is the city manager an at will employee? And if that's the case, is the better word to put in there instead of just, he may be suspended for any cause. Cause. Yeah. Or for cause. Right.

Mister Pitchford, is that a leading personnel? Or

It is a a legal question. And I would without doing any research on it, I would agree with you that the city manager is an at will employee. I would have to go back. He's under contract. Right? So subject to his contract, I think he would be an at will employee that that position is. I I haven't looked into it before at this moment. Sure.

No. That's fair. And and and it's just one of those those terms that, you know, with a legal background, I can I could kind of tell you if we have just cause, but my interpretation could be very different from another person's interpretation?

Does the does the contract have specificity to that? Or No. I haven't read it.

I think it might use

the We're seeing line page.

Refer to

your Yeah.

It's the

charter. We may have done Excuse the

me, but are there any performance reviews conducted during his employment, and wouldn't your suspension be based on performance reviews?

It could be. It doesn't necessarily have to be, but there is a, generally speaking, an annual review on a which occurs on the anniversary of currently mister Sheridan's tenure. That's what it's targeted to to happen. We don't always hit that mark, but city council does do an evaluation.

Mister Foster?

If if I can explain. So there is a a formal review process. It is outlined in the city manager's employment agreement. That agreement is very similar to all the former city manager agreements in that all city council members complete an evaluation, both written and ratings. They are put together and averaged, and then city council may choose to provide a raise.

The city manager does not receive a COLA, does not receive a cost of living increase, but the raise would be at city council's will. There has throughout my six years on council, there has always been a meeting. It has been held by the seated city council president and one other member with the city manager to review all of the content of those reviews and then to discuss whether legislation would be entered in order to provide for a raise. So that does happen every year. Yeah.

If if I may, miss Norman, also to your point about being an an at will, the first sentence in five zero three, section five zero three, I think, lend support to the position right word, you the language that says, serves only at the pleasure of counsel. To me, that would would, very much support a conclusion that it's at, at will.

My initial go back to the beginning of what Ms. Norman said in terms of the how she described it, that the standard appeared to be lower for this than for that. Setting aside board and commission members versus manager and treating manager, I would say the standard for suspension should be lower than for removal. And if the commission were to feel that I see the word just before cause twice in five point o two, and whether it's removing that or replacing just with the word any twice as mister well, no. That was as as, miss Norman suggested and mister if I heard mister Pittsford correct that that, might not be unacceptable or might might be helpful.

View on something like that or does anyone else have any additional thoughts?

I would I would probably suggest rather than any cause just having cause.

I

think cause is a little bit more commonplace and at will types of arrangements, and any cause makes it feel like there's a imbalance for the employer and not the employee. So again, that's a more of a legal term, but I've just that's more common to what I've seen.

And I and I think to go to the differences with section 10, if I'm not mistaken, I mean, the city manager is a paid position where those other roles are unpaid. So I think given that fact, you know, that the city manager is a paid role, you know, for cause, think makes sense. I think any is a little inflammatory and just as questionable. So maybe it's just for cause. It may actually

be an employment law question because with or without cause has something to do with being able to get unemployment. So that's just another layer of this that again I would would ask.

And you would you would expect in this context, before city council would act, this would be something that would be taken into executive session with legal counsel. It's one of the Yeah. Identified exceptions to the public records, or the open meetings laws, and just cause is absolutely a a defined term in in the law. And there's you you can find cases. Essentially, if there are cases that kinda define it, what it is and then what it isn't. And, I mean, obviously, each, situation is judged, on its own merits.

I have a second point if you wanna move on or not yet. Unless

it relates to that. No. Mister Trainer made the suggestion to eliminate the words just in two I see it in two places. I might have missed if there's another one, but is would everyone be open to that? Yes. Okay. So then, miss Norma, what's your next comment?

Just to point out that because this specifically requires the vote of four members of council, if all members of council are present, it's a simple majority. But if a council member is missing, this becomes a super majority. And, you know, this is one of my favorite topics five years ago to bring up to the Charter Review Commission. This I just wanna be sure that this is what we intend to do. It doesn't need if it's just for suspension, does it really need to be four votes? Can it just be a simple majority to make that decision? Might be different for removal.

And it is just Five yeah. It's five point o three. So to to a point, five point o one, it's five to remove. In five point o three, it's five. In five point o four or excuse me, point o two, it's four to to spend. Suspend. Suspend, as it was explained to us five years ago, is a is a temporary procedure to allow you to then move to, whether or not you're going to remove. It's not meant to be a a permanent thing. That was my understanding of it. So that was that was explained. That's why the standard was a little lower in terms of number of council members to suspend.

Right. And my my only point is that it's it's sufficient to be a simple majority if everybody's there, but it's not okay to have a simple majority if you're missing people. And why do we care about that? Like, if it's if it's just the temporary suspension, wouldn't it make sense for the city council to be able to take action on it with a three to two vote or a you'd have to have four to have a majority if you had six people present because otherwise it would fail.

I think if it were anything less than four, then you have the potential for a minority of of not a majority of council voting to suspend. So I think that's where the minimum of four came from. So It's

one of

my favorite topics. That's why I raise it.

Any other reactions, comments to missus, miss Norman's second comment? Okay. Did you have others?

No. No.

And did anyone else have any other, comments regarding section five point o two? Hey. If I hear none, then we'll add to the list asking, Mr. Pitchford to draft a simple amendment to remove just in two or however many places it can be found in the section. Next is section five point o three, tenure and removal process. Mister Trainer?

Section five point o three, tenure and removal process. The city manager's tenure shall be indefinite, but shall continue only at the pleasure of council and affirmative vote of at least five members of council being necessary for removal. The process of removal shall require at least three members of council to propose the removal of the city manager by introducing a resolution at a regular or special meeting of the council to suspend the city manager pending the city manager's removal, and the resolution shall set forth the reasons for the removal. The resolution proposing to suspend the city manager pending removal shall not require three readings at three separate meetings of the council, but it must be approved by the affirmative vote of at least four members of council to become effective. A copy of such resolution shall be served immediately upon the city manager using one of the methods for service in section 5.02.

Upon service of the resolution upon the city manager, the city manager shall have fifteen days in which to reply thereto in writing and upon written request filed with the clerk of counsel within that fifteen day period shall be afforded a hearing at a public meeting. The hearing shall occur no earlier than fifteen days nor later than thirty days after the request for a hearing if filed. If the hearing is not requested by the city manager within the fifteen day period, the removal of city manager is effective on the sixteenth day after the service of the resolution provided for above. After the hearing, if one is requested, and after full consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, the council may adopt a final resolution of removal. A final resolution of removal shall be acted upon by the council within fifteen days after the close of all evidence and arguments at the council's hearing, and it shall be effective immediately upon its passage.

An affirmative vote of at least five members of council shall be necessary for removal of the city manager. By the affirmative vote of at least four members of council, the council shall appoint a municipal employee to serve as the acting city manager during any suspension pending removal of the city manager, and this was amended 11/03/2020.

A lot of discussion about this in 2020, and it was to nail down a process where it was felt that there was none. So apologies if it sounds like it was overboard, but it was as suggested. Any comments or questions about that section, mister So

a like, I think about a disciplinary process, is a suspension first required before the removal process can begin?

I believe so.

Because I'm I'm I'm just a little Just yeah.

It starts with three members proposing the removal, so it it's I don't think it's a continuation of suspension from what I read.

Yeah. Because it's the first, second, third, fourth

Continue on. Scott, keep going. So or mister Trainer, I'm sorry. The by introducing a resolution at a regular special meeting of the council to suspend the city manager pending the city manager's removal. So I'm reading it as Okay. So Yes. Right? Just during the during the removal you're suspended. Suspension.

Right? So so okay. Five one zero two is

just a suspension. Just a think

just the, the first whole last is question. Paragraph on the next page. Just for the sake of redundancy, I might suggest just striking that or modifying in a way to just reference back to five point o two. It's almost it's not word for word, which kind of just catches my eye, but it is described in the last paragraph of five point o two in in almost the same way.

I think it's word for word.

I was reading it, and I caught a couple that didn't look like they matched, but maybe I'm just being nitpicky here.

They had a little differently on the I was at the lines. I

don't think it's redundant because you have to include even though the first five point o two is about a suspension.

Okay.

Five point o three is about

Removal. Okay. Yeah. So, the capstone to that. Right.

Yeah. It's

suspension pending removal versus just suspension.

Which could happen. You could suspend as a disciplinary measure for a period of time because the suspension, I presume, is without pay. And then you come back, and you hopefully learned your lesson. And then if it's a problem again, we suspend you with a sense of removing, and then we have a whole another process, but we still have to cover the functionality of the city Right. While those processes are happening. Yeah.

Okay. You you bring up a good point. So then, is the suspension for the removal process paid or unpaid?

Yeah. Because it doesn't always speak to that.

I would put it in the charter either way. That's not that's too detailed. If counsel has a rule or resolution about wanting to do pay, no pay, half pay, I don't wanna put it in the charter that they must do one thing or another because every circumstance is gonna be different. Let's just take up, not to make too light of it, but let's just say somebody got let's just say any city manager got pulled over for a DUI. Okay?

It's not a felony, but it also looks really bad. Let's just say they were driving a city car just to make it worse. And so, you know, we don't wanna not do anything, but we really don't wanna get rid of a good employee who had one lapse of judgment. And whether the city council is going to pay the person while they're suspended, that's a mark on their record. I mean, that's not good.

You've already paid in a way even if we keep paying you your salary. On the flip side, if they did something really awful, like drove the city car into a crowded area of people with the intention of causing harm, and they weren't sorry about it. Now we have a situation where we probably wanna suspend and remove the individual, and that probably is going to be without any pay because I don't think a city council would be very sympathetic to an unrepentant felon, and we wouldn't wanna compel them to pay or to pay half. Or the circumstances are always going to be different. I just sort of feel like we should let that be.

Yeah. And and just purely for the sake of sparring, I look at the previous section five point o two where there is discretion, whether the the suspension, only suspension should be paid or unpaid, and just for the sake of continuity, whether there should be the same verbiage during the removal process. I'm only asking just for everyone's opinion.

Well, maybe a question might once you hit suspend, does it revert back to the section and say, well, then you're following the rules of suspension because it's still a suspension. It's just caused by a different purpose because there is a process to remove them.

Yes.

So I think maybe it just sort of covers it that way. That would that's how I would interpret it.

Yeah. I I mean, it's almost it's like so miss Norman's two examples. One, the drunk driving, simple drunk driving, right, that could be a suspension where the second example of egregious behavior, like, that shows you're we're gonna go through the process and that per so it's I almost look at it simplistically like suspension is the for a lesser offense and removal is for a severe offense.

And and even halfway through five point o three to slide. We'll then and And slide. The

That's totally okay with me. Thank you for helping me understand.

Any other comments, questions, suggestions regarding 5.03? Leave it as it is. Yes. Okay. Section five point o four, powers and duties. It's a long one. Miss Griffith, would you like to take at least part of it?

Sure. Section five point o four, powers and duties. The city manager shall be the chief administrative officer of the municipality responsible responsible to the council for the proper administration of all affairs of the municipality and the enforcement of all laws and ordinances within the scope of the designated powers and duties of the office. The city manager shall manage all divisions and departments of the municipal government and to this end shall have the power and be required to, a, point appoint, promote, transfer, reduce, or remove subject to the provisions of this charter and enactments of the council pursuant thereto any officer or employee of the municipality except those required by the charter to be elected and those persons as may otherwise be provided for by this charter. And the city manager may appoint one or more assistants or duty or deputies provided such position is provided for by an ordinance of the council, and such appointment is approved by the council.

B, execute on behalf of the municipality all contracts, conveyances, evidence of indebtedness, and all other instruments to which the municipality is a party, and affix the seal of the municipality to all said instruments, but the absence of the seal shall not affect the validity of any such instrument. C, attend all council meetings with the right to participate in discussions and bring matters to the attention of council but without the right to vote. D, recommend the adoption or repeal of any legislation by council. E, submit annually prior to January 1 of the next year a five year financial plan to include capital improvements. The capital improvement plan should list major proposed capital improvements for the next five years with supporting information as to their necessity, cost estimates, the methods of possible financing and suggested time schedule for each improvement.

F, submit an annual budget to the council and be responsible for its proper execution as covered by appropriation ordinance of the council. G, submit to council a monthly report showing the conditions of all funds, and council shall by ordinance describe the specific form of report. H, prepare and submit to council within sixty days after the end of each fiscal year a complete report on finances and administrative activities of the municipality for the preceding year. I, act as purchasing agent for the municipality. J, assist the council to develop long term goals for the municipality and strategies to implement these goals.

K, provide to council on a timely basis any information data, documents, and reports related to municipal matters as requested by counsel. And l, perform all other duties prescribed for the city manager in this charter or by counsel.

In this section, this is the only part of, article five where we did have a suggestion. We had a mister, Merwin, Hudson resident, had submitted a suggestion that said, at some level, maybe all the hiring and termination of city employees should not be the sole responsibility of the city manager. Council should have council should have to confirm by majority vote plus perhaps not objection by the mayor. This section has been amended in by four of the last five, Charter Review Commissions. As I recall, it's just tweaks last time.

Nothing major. Any questions, concerns, clarifications regarding section 5.04?

Maybe just a reaction to Mr. Merwin's comment that while I recognize for elected officials and some of that perhaps that plays, but if the city manager and the staff of the city management staff are all again in this at will category, I would feel that, you know, the normal at will, you know, system should be set up that there shouldn't be required any kind of, oh, we have to get approval from the mayor or council or anything else. They've been he's been put in the empowered position to manage the staff, and therefore he hires and makes the decisions. And if he's not doing his job, he's then held accountable to that, and the people underneath him, he holds or she holds them accountable. That would be my interpretation.

So I don't understand I don't know that it would be appropriate for counsel to have to approve him making a hiring or firing decision. Also, my question when

I saw that was just what is the total volume of people that report you know, seven terminations a year. If we would Yeah. So, you would have a quite a little workload on council. Yeah. Even if it was just in writing.

Not counting seasonals, how many employees does the city of Hudson have ballpark is?

Ballpark? Ballpark. Yeah. I mean, not including seasonals, you know, over one fifty anyway.

Think I it's like in the one twenty, one thirty range. The last time I talked to Tom about it.

Are you including police, fire?

It was it was just a conversation that we had and he was talking about how we were fortunate enough not to have any work, you know, a significant amount if any disciplinary issues at the time. And his quote to me was, you know, I've got a 124 employees. So I mean, I think that changes comes and goes, but that was his comment to me.

Close enough.

Yeah. If I if I could make one comment regarding it. I, you know, I think that is the city council does have to approve the appointment of an assistant city manager, the solicitor and the clerk. So we do approve that. We would also be involved in termination if there was termination in any of those three positions.

Okay. And I think that the reason for this, just having sat there, is if if city council gets involved in the direct management of staff, that is technically a charter violation. And it feels as though if City Council was somehow swayed or involved in the termination process, it would open the door for City Council to get more involved in direct staff management. And that's what we're trying to avoid. There should only be one person who City Council interacts with. That's just my opinion.

And I would also add to that, there are certain processes that already exist. There is an appeal process for certain employees. We also have several unions that they have their own disciplinary process. So weigh in with a charter amendment on that would throw a certainly a wrench into the process that there would be a legal concern. I agree. Okay.

So there's essentially beyond all of the employees that the city manager has sole authority over. There are counsel has a role to directly appoint a limited few and confirm

several others. And they also those rules that I talked about, those have been approved by counsel at at one point. And certainly the, the collective bargain agreements, the union agreements, those are approved every five years. So again, it's it's all consistent with the charter as it currently,

is set. Any other questions regarding this section?

The only question I had was on item e. Just wanted to make sure miss maybe mister Foster can answer this. If not, maybe we'll have to ask mister Sheridan when he returns. Is January 1 still a reasonable date that makes sense on that? Or because I think there was a change five years ago in the annual report because it was required at the start of the year, and the numbers aren't actually in then. And I just wanted to make sure we we didn't miss an opportunity to correct a date if we needed to.

Council always goes through the budgetary process in August, September and October, and we approve the five year plan really by November at the very latest. In fact, given the time that council is seated and appointed, and while I agree with Doctor. Goetz in terms of potentially shifting that to a January date to better align with some county board of election deadlines and Ohio deadlines and things like that, The very last vote, the third reading of city council tends to be the last reading that the members are on city council before they leave council. So that third reading tends to happen in November. The new council is currently seated in the on the first Tuesday in December.

And so, you know, we've never fallen short of that deadline of either a five year budget or the one year approval.

So it's fine.

Seems fine to me.

Okay. Thank you. That's all.

Other comments about the section? So am I hearing, no suggested changes?

No. Is

article two more. Oh, o five and o six.

Sorry about

that. Not off that easy. Next

is section five point o five vacancy, miss McCoy.

Whenever the office of city manager shall become vacant for any reason, the council may appoint an interim city manager by the affirmative vote of at least four members of council for a reasonable length of time to exercise the powers and duties of such office until a city manager is appointed. A person holding another office in the municipality may be appointed as interim city manager and may continue to hold such other office. The interim city manager shall continue only at the pleasure of counsel on the vote of at least four members of counsel being necessary for removal.

Questions about this section? I think this comes into play after removal. Mhmm. Okay.

One question. Yes, ma'am. We don't know oh, it's probably in the next one, the acting city manager. I was gonna say, who is the second in command to the city manager?

Well, if only the city manager position is vacant, then any other positions that existed before the vacancy would still be there. If, say, there's an assistant or deputy city manager and the city manager goes vacant, council makes the decision who's the acting city manager or interim in this case. The other positions would remain. Any other so am I hearing no suggested changes? No. Suggested. Alright. Section five point o six acting city manager miss Bettillary.

By letter filed with the clerk of council, the city manager shall designate a city officer or employee to exercise the powers and perform the duties of city manager during the city manager's temporary absence or disability. The council may revoke such designation at any time and appoint another officer of the city to serve until the city manager returns.

Questions about this one, acting versus interim?

Well, so I I do have a question. Mister Ryan. Is there a I don't know. Maybe I'll ask it as a negative. Is there any mechanism to prevent somebody from being an interim or acting city manager for ten years?

For the interim, it does say decision by council, third line for a reasonable length of time. So that would be at the discretion of councils the way I would read it.

There is I mean, ultimately, it's up to the discretion of council. Okay. So there's oversight.

Are you on how long the job search and the the interview Right. And all that how that plays out?

Okay. Sure. No. That answers my question.

And then in five point o six for acting, that specifically references on the third line temporary absence or disability. Okay. So then it would be up to counsel if if the person said, well, I'm gonna be temporarily absent for two years. Right. Then counsel would

Right. Okay. Good. I just wanna make sure that there's oversight by council in there.

Should we add any about when in 05/2006, last time was this council may revoke such designation. It doesn't have a number of votes for that, and everything else seems to have that. Should we add that or should is it just assume that it's majority?

I'd like it just in majority just saying. No. Really, I I think a simple majority for most things. I I agree that there are times when a super majority is is well founded. For example, picking the city manager, you want to know that really you have the majority of your leadership on board with the personality, the skills, the reputa everything. But to handle what's essentially an administrative or clerical sort of situation, I I don't I don't think that's necessary for us to specify in the charter. This is this is intending to be as Temporary. Temporary. It's temporary. Mhmm.

It's for a vacation or or sickness or operation or Yep. Short term.

Okay. Two minutes. McCoy's question, though. Mhmm. Would never assume anything. I think it's a great it's a great question. Yeah. What's the process for Yeah. Mister Binchford, would that be a suggestion that we could incorporate in the second sentence the council by a vote of at least four members?

So I would, take the position that Ms. Norman took earlier. I think this is exactly the example where, that would apply. And there's this concept in the law where you provide something and you say something in one way here and you don't say it the same way somewhere else, then you're intending it to mean something different. And so I would argue that this threshold here for the last sentence in this five point o six is a majority of those present once a quorum has been reached.

So it could be in that moment where you've got four people or five people because you have a quorum. It would only take three votes to replace that person. You don't have to that's how this reads. I'm not suggesting that we change it because it's a temporary scenario. I I don't know. I don't think that too much havoc can be wreaked, you know, in this kind of scenario.

But can counsel take well, in terms of not being consistent in the previous section, it it says twice by a vote of at least four members and granted that's for the vacancy. In this case, for the acting. And I'm just picking up on the question that Ms. McCoy asked. I don't see it as being unreasonable.

I mean, I I would say to me if the if the if the manager said, I'm declaring I'm gonna be, you know, what wherever. I'm gonna be at vacation Europe for whatever for for four weeks, six weeks. And at some point in time, there's a seven member council. If at some point in time, three members, well, say say, somebody calls a special meeting of council and there's four members present and three of the four happened to say, no. We don't want that. Then then you have a minority of don't have a number that can do anything else the council does making a decision of the utmost importance.

I agree with you. Alright. That's my interpretation. That's why my comment about I don't think that the minority, which is what you're talking about, the minority of three could wreak too much havoc. I don't know that it's going to be the likelihood of that happening and and especially in this particular context, the risk is is minimal. If you want to go ahead and require, you know, the threshold of four no matter what, then we could certainly add that. I'm I'm not taking that position that that's necessary here, but it's certainly not inappropriate either. Like, I'm neutral on whether you wanna change that language or not.

I guess the

way that I see this is this is a situation where the city manager is appointing somebody. In the other cases, council was in is involved with the appointment. So city manager says, okay, Joe, you're you're the guy. I'm go I'm going out of the country. So you've got all authority, and you probably don't wanna hamstring council to have to get seven present and vote for because if they need to make a decision, you want three or whatever a quorum is to be able to make the decision. Or four needs to be quorum and then Three would be the majority. Three is still the majority split, but I would even interpret if it's locked, there's probably a process for that. If it's two to two that they wanna get

The motion fails and the the the manager's appointment would stay.

Okay. And then they would just have to find another council member to get there to the size. Okay. Mhmm.

So picking up right on that, we have consistency with the four members of council voting. Not that I necessarily like it, but we are consistent related to filling the vacancy, which is a longer term, and the removal process and the suspension process. This is a temporary situation that and let let let's just take a real world example. Like, you have someone going on vacation, and they've appointed a wonderful person who's relatively competent in just making sure the city happens. But then you are in North Carolina, and nobody told you that you should be prepared for a hurricane.

And here comes hurricane Helena to wreak havoc all over your city, and you don't know the first thing about emergency management. And now the council can sense your frustration and says, okay. We need to replace you with somebody who knows how to rebuild roads or whatever the circumstance is. There could always be a contingency that council should be able to have that flexibility because it's temporary. Yeah. It would be calling our city manager. Please come back from Italy. We've had a catastrophe. That's I I think you're right on that. So so I think I I would advocate for not changing this section given its transient nature.

Yeah. Agreed. Agreed. So

any changes proposed to five point o six? No. No. Now we're done

with it. It

is eight twelve. Is everyone okay with moving to article eight? Article eight. There are eight sections to article eight, and this pertains to most of the staff and commission's. Section eight point o one is general provisions. Miss Norman?

Section eight point o one general provisions, the council may by ordinance establish, reorganize, and consolidate such divisions or departments for the operation of the government of the municipality as it may deem necessary. With the exception of any division or department established by this charter, the council may continue or abolish divisions or departments as it may deem necessary. The council may authorize one person appointed by the city manager to be the head of two or more divisions or departments. The city manager shall be the head of each division or department unless the city manager appoints some other person to such office amended in November on 11/07/2000.

Simple as per receipt, pretty straightforward. Any suggested changes to that? No. Leave it alone. Section eight point o two, division of safety, mister Hoover.

Division of safety. The division of safety shall include the police, fire, and emergency medical services in the municipality. The director of public safety shall make all necessary rules and regulations for the government of the division and the several departments thereof, and shall be charged with the duty of enforcing all police, health, safety, and sanitary regulations that may be prescribed by ordinance or rules of municipality or the general laws of the state of Ohio. The police chief, fire chief, and director of EMS shall be appointed by the city manager upon the concurrence of a majority of the members of council.

Any, questions, clarifications regarding this section? Mister Hoover?

Are we to just assume the division the director of public safety is the city manager or can it be someone else? Because the city doesn't it's not under civil service rules as far as hiring and firing of police and fire personnel, is it?

Mr. Pitchford can correct me, but it's my understanding that this would be, covered by the last sentence in 8.01 where it says city manager shall be the head unless the city manager appoints. Think of police and fire and EMS as being different departments, but they all in the charter fall under the division of safety. And it's I I would assume, I think the city manager is the Yes. What would that be?

He's the Director Public But

then underneath the director of public safety, I the he appoints the police chief and the various chiefs and heads of each department. So individual, like, patrol officers, those are appointed or hired by, like, the police chief. There's not an outside commission that has any part of it. There's no civil Right.

We do not have a civil cert. Okay.

Just a quick fact check. Since this last amendment, are there any new chiefs or directors that we would want to include in this? Asking maybe Mr. Foster or Mr. Bradford. Are there any new positions that we would want to make sure we account for in this? Or is this still

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure, you know, I could answer that. We we have talked about potentially restructuring, emergency services and the fire department and somewhat separating them, but I believe Chief Barnes is technically the head of both EMS and fire. And since this calls out the fire chief and the director of EMS as separate positions, that's you're probably good. Okay. You're probably good. Perfect.

Other

questions? Suggested changes? Hearing none. We move on to section eight point o three city solicitor, mister Ryan.

The city solicitor shall be appointed by the city manager with the concurrence of a majority of the members of council. The city solicitor shall be an attorney at law, admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio, and shall be adviser of an attorney and counsel for the municipality and for all officers and divisions thereof in all matters relating to their official duties, and shall, when requested by the city manager or counsel, give legal, give legal opinions in writing. The city solicitor shall represent the municipality in in all suits or cases in which it may be a party and shall prosecute for all offenses against the laws of Ohio as may be required. The city solicitor or such other assistance as counsel may provide may act as a prosecuting attorney bless you. May act as a prosecuting attorney and render such services as are normally rendered by prosecuted attorneys in the state of Ohio.

The city solicitor shall work shall, on the request of the city manager, prepare contracts, bonds, and other instruments in writing in which the municipality is concerned and shall endorse on each of the on each the proper approval of the form and correctness thereof. The city solicitor shall draft proposed legislations on request of the city manager, members of council, or the mayor. Amended 11/07/2000, amended again 11/03/2020.

Before I forget, we did under on our chart, page four, we did have one, suggested change and this was from councilwoman gets and she elaborated on it earlier, making a suggestion for an elected solicitor. Questions, clarifications, comments regarding this section?

Okay. I just had one real quick, and this may be nothing. This is all prosecuting, verbiage. Is there any like, how is the city defended?

So we have a separate city prosecutor that council has provided for, and she works technically, she's under my my office as city solicitor, but she handles all of the criminal matters and is directly in charge of all of those and has all the police powers and whatnot that are associated with that office.

Okay. So it's we don't even account for that.

No. Because it you want the flexibility here. Right? Because it says the if you if you read it like closely, right? It says the city solicitor or you know someone else as council may provide then uses the word may again. So it's Perfect. So essentially it's either or as as and I would argue as council directs.

Okay. Thank you.

I had a couple of comments, mister chair. I'm gonna lobby again to change the word solicitor, which I believe is an antiquated term that most people just don't know. I'm not sure if the word law director is more appropriate or the term law director because we don't really like, mister Pitchford doesn't have an office here that he sits in all day waiting for something to happen. He's not really an employee the same way that maybe the economic development director is. That would that's

council's done it both ways. They've either had consulting attorneys and they've actually employed attorneys. I don't know what the current arrangement is.

So city attorney, city law director, those are very clear terms. City solicitor, I sometimes get a look from people like, no, it's an old word for England. We're in Old England. Solicitor. So that's just one thought. It would have to be changed throughout that. And and while it may be stylistic or, you know, maybe I should just suck it up and have to explain every time. In relation to the comments by councilwoman Goetz, I would not be in favor of an elected solicitor. I think this complicates the nature of the services way too much. First of all, we don't know how how far that goes.

Is it just one person? Does it affect the prosecutor as well? What happens if, for example, mister Pittsford is conflicted out? The council has the ability to go find another attorney who's not conflicted who can serve the city's interests. How would this how would an elected city solicitor impact that freedom?

But moreover, I realized that, you know, city solicitor let's just say that all lawyers aren't created equally, which may surprise some of you. But the the in recent memory within the city of Hudson, we had a city solicitor who was rendering services that were below par and unhelpful, and it took already, it took something in the order of six months for that person to be let go because it's not like the decision gets made instantly and the ship turns on a dime. So an elected solicitor, I think, the way our government is set up is while it does create a certain level of being answerable to the public, I think it unnecessarily politicizes a job that really isn't political, so I wouldn't be in favor of it.

Any other comments?

I would tend to agree with that. I think that it doesn't feel like it should be a elected official position, And therefore, other than employee agreement that the solicitor has, know, they have protections based on that. But I don't think it goes beyond that because we wanna have the best attorney possible for our services that we need in the city.

And I to build upon that, think about it, you know, as someone the city manager relies on, there needs to be a working relationship. And have the city manager having, the ability to choose who they think will best fit the needs of the job and the city. I think that's of critical importance where, you know, if it was an elected official, I could see, you know, the city manager maybe not the elected person not being their first choice. So I think adding city solicitor to be an elected position, I think makes things unnecessarily complicated. Because again, it's not a it's not a political position.

And also how far do you go? Right? Because the city solicitor reports into a city manager. City manager's not elected. They're appointed by council. So far down do you just that level then? Right. So that's where I there's not

No. It's it's not

Do you

mean like it's not even flow versus where we elect council and then council we elect the person that we think will do the best job, and they pick based on what they do debates and they

Yeah. Would be inconsistent.

Yeah. Yeah. Any other commissioner comments before you go to Mr. Foster? Mr. Foster?

Yeah. Just wanted to provide some historical context for both for and against. I mean, I guess, just so that you understand some of the history and complexity of the solicitor and council relationship. Years ago, we have a solicitor and we also have special counsel. Special counsel is supposed to report directly to city council.

The solicitor reports to the city manager, is appointed with the approval of council. A number of years ago, I had tried to work with our special counsel and was essentially denied access to our special special counsel, even though the special counsel supposedly reported directly to city council. And it was essentially not verbally denied access, but they never responded to me, period, because the city manager signed their check. And they decided I didn't deserve a response. And so I ended up hiring my own municipal attorney to represent me for two years, and spent far more than I make on city council in paying attorney's fees to write legislation.

So that was an interesting experience. As far as electing somebody in city council, electing a a solicitor from the city Of Hudson, I would also see that as possible. I know it sounds weird. I like to employ people in the City Of Hudson. It sounds like a possible conflict because we have seen, people come to the City Of Hudson and specifically try and cause members of different boards and commissions and council to recuse themselves from decisions simply because of where they live.

If you have a solicitor who lives next to a big open field that somebody wants to develop, you're going to have a developer require them to stand aside and you've to got go out and find special counsel in order to weigh in on that development. I can see that as real possible conflict. I actually like having a solicitor who doesn't live in Hudson, although I like Marshall very much. I would like him to move to Hudson. I see definite benefits for having a solicitor who's not personally interested in the town and can't be forced to recuse themselves from issues.

My my experience with, I've I've dealt as a consultant with, in communities where they have elected law directors or solicitors, and I've always just found it to be awkward that it's it's because I normally think about the the the if you think about an attorney or a legal representative, they're actually supportive. And they're they're providing you with expert guidance and advice, that you don't have for yourself. And that where I've seen it, where they've been elected positions, found that it's just my my opinion or observation. It's more of they take on their own they have their own constituencies if they're elected, and it becomes there it's less about representing the other officials in the actual community than it is about the representing the constituents that elect them. So I I tend to take a a view of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And I've always found it to be that it's working. That's just my opinion. I agree the the term is old, but it's it's always been there, and I don't I don't necessarily have a problem with it. And if we change it, we're not just gonna have to change it here. We have to do a scrub, and it would be throughout the whole document. But I'll

You're wearing a white wig, so Solicitor.

Said what

I said.

Said, and the will of the group is democracy at work.

Hearing all the the comments, are there any suggested changes to section eight point o three? We move on. Section eight point o four,

you did it last, right? Yes.

Section eight point o four park board composition in terms. The park board shall consist of five or seven qualified electors of municipality appointed by counsel and not holding other office to serve without compensation for staggered four year terms. Each member shall have been a resident of municipality or territory annexed thereto for two years preceding appointment and shall continue to remain a resident during the member's term. In the event of a vacancy, council shall appoint a qualified elector to fill the unexpired term. No member shall serve more than three consecutive four year terms.

Meetings shall be open to the public except as provided by state law, amended three different times. And I'll proceed discussion of this. We did receive one, three, four, five, six different comments regarding, section eight point o four.

Since you're right.

Since this will be the first board and commission that we're discussing, I think there's like seven or eight of them throughout the charter. And five years ago, there were all different types of, language regarding numbers of members, terms that they serve, residency proceeding appointment, term limits, meetings open to the public, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. We looked at all of them and made it all consistent. The different boards and commissions have different numbers of members. Some have three, five, or seven, or in this case, five or seven.

So what I would suggest rather than picking individual is if if there's a specific issue, think about it globally. And I'm thinking back one of the suggestions I'll mention, Mr. Foster had made a suggestion when he was here earlier, it's here, Line 44, about the terms and making a suggestion regarding the number of years. If that's something to think about, I would suggest it be a one discussion and it's something that we apply to all. We don't have to have the discussion eight times in my So just before we get into discussion, the first suggestion was from, councilman Bandweg.

He said reorganize Park Board Tree Commission and Environmental Affairs, Committee into one chartered parks and recreation board resources board. Prioritized for ballot as Hudson prioritize for the ballot. As Hudson moves forward with additional parks, enhanced recreation, and a responsible approach to our natural resources, these board responsibilities become intimately intertwined but remain managed separately. The combination of responsibilities under the current Park Board structure supports alignment of work, sustainment of value of each and facilitates flexible subcommittees by interest or specific task that can evolve with the direction of the city's development. This would also address the common feeling of having too many boards and commissions, three solely focused on our parks and natural resources.

Next, also from Mr. Bandweg, Charter, the Military and Veterans Commission prioritized for the ballot, combined with reorganization of the Park and Recreation Board. While not directed at the park board, this is related to the proposed change. The relationship between our city and the veteran and military population supports timeless community need and codifying it will ensure that this that seasonal politics do not undermine the relationship and activities between the city and our nation's history or our veteran population. Next, also from miss mister Bandweg, expiration of boards and commissions prioritized for the ballot combined with reorganization of park and resource board.

Boards and commissions should expire every five years unless chartered by the Charter Review Commission. This allows for their reestablishment through legislation, but does not require their indefinite existence as the community needs change as community needs change. Next from councilwoman Kowalski. This comment is not related to park board but to the environmental awareness committee. The commission, Charter Review Commission, should consider making the EAC a charter committee.

If it is not or it is not and could be limited by council with a resolution, I believe environmental issues are too important, and this needs to be a board that the charter protects. Next from councilor Sutton, clerk of council note. This comment is related to park board, cemetery board, tree commission, planning commission, borders zoning, building appeals, and architectural and historic board of review. Some residents have raised the concern that the quote must be a resident for two years before serving on a border committee requirement is too restrictive. I'm in full firm and full support of the two year requirement.

While it's true that new residents can bring new ideas, I think it is important that board members be vested and rooted in the community. New residents have opportunities to participate by sharing ideas and concerns via public comments. And then the last one, also from councilor Sutton, clerk of council note, this comment is not directly related to Park Board, but about boards and commissions generally. Some boards are chartered and others are defined by council. Some residents have suggested that certain boards, commissions be quote promoted unquote to chartered boards slash commissions.

I am of the opinion that we have too many boards and commissions as it is, and none of the codified boards need to be chartered. The city website lists over 20 boards and commissions at this time and I believe we should be discussing removing slash merging some of them, not adding or promoting. Additionally, I would propose that all council appointed boards should expire every five years unless the Charter Review Committee establishes them as a chartered board. Those are the suggestions. Maybe to just, start us, just with the the fundamental issues for maybe this board and others.

Let's start with the two year residency requirement. Any thoughts on that? And does anybody have any objection to that?

Keep it. Keep Keep it.

Alright. Keep Next, let's start with all the boards and commissions without getting into specifics are set up with staggered four year terms. Does anyone have any issues with that?

My only feedback is four years is a long time for where I'm at in life. I've not not joined boards because you're literally talking about doubling some of my kids' lives given the term of that. I don't know where I'm gonna be in four years and what my obligations will be, so I just my only feedback is I think four years is little long, but I I also see the value in it as well. So I just wanted to make that.

Mister chair, with complete respect to mister Hall, the reason I didn't serve in Hudson at all when I had young children was for that exact reason. So I'm a 100% sympathetic. But now that I have served, what I observe is that is this one being an exception because our Charter Review Commission is a very short term. Yep. Once the job is done, we disband. Mhmm. But having served on both cemetery board and also on the planning commission, there is a learning curve that easily takes a year. Cemetery board only meets four times a year. That learning curve isn't too hard. It's a fairly straightforward organization.

But the planning commission involves a much more rigorous review, and and mister Kahler knows this from having been on it too. And that time period allows you not only to gain the expertise on the the regular meeting contents, but also allows leadership to grow within that organization. When you have a constant influx of new people coming, and we've had a lot of new members on the planning commission recently, We ended up electing a vice chair who had served for less than six months because that's what we had to work with. Now she's great, and I'm not, you know, disparaging that, but in my mind, in an ideal world, we would turn over those leadership positions of the chair or the vice chair to the more senior members or the more experienced people who have been there for at least a couple of years. They don't have to be the senior member.

This is not rewarding that longevity aspect, but it at least assures a level of confidence and and knowing how the flow goes and those sorts of things. So so that would be my counter to that. I so I don't have an issue with the four year term, though I totally understand your your sentiments.

And I and I think that my understanding is that the there's not that many meetings, whereas this is there's more meetings for for this within a shorter period of time. So I can understand where it's not that much of a burden. I think just when I look at it from my perspective and where I'm at, four years is just very it's just very simplistic. Right? Like, there's no flexibility to that. There's no ability for, you know, two to four year term or anything that would be a little bit more generalized. Right. And that's the only reason I mentioned it. But I totally appreciate four years and the learning curves and things like that take I just wanted to make it. It was something that has been on noted. Yes. Yes.

Mister Hulff, I may add, I feel this I I feel I I feel like I'm in the middle. I feel both ways. When I when my kids were I'm assuming your kid's age, I I have felt the same way. I wanna be a part of everything and I just couldn't. And I go back to the question mister Foster, I believe it was you who asked me during our interview process. He literally looked at me and he's like, why now? Where have you been? I've been Where your wife is right now is where I am. But I will say I'm a different person now. I have more buy in to my community.

Still the same level with my family, but I I feel that I'm able to provide more now than I would have then. I would be able to take on a four year term now and because of that, and I just think the the length of time in the community, I mean, it kind of forces you to live here for Sure. Four years then, not the two. I mean, so I don't know. I I hear I absolutely hear you. I totally hear you. I remember feeling that way, but I do think, miss Norman's point, I'm I'm on board with the four years, but I wouldn't have been ten years ago. True.

I think I think the discussion just reinforces Yeah. Four years is appropriate.

Yeah. I mean, that's I hear it.

From also so I was just appointed to the planning commission. I have a six four and two year old. So I'm kind of where you are, but I went for it because in my mind, I love the city and I want to be a part of it because I want to see it the best city can be for my children. So I kind of took it as a flip side. But on on the other side, I also stay home with

my kids, so I spend a

lot of time with them. So I'm not like working all day and then coming right here. So it's Sure.

You can see all the different

sides of it. Right? It's I think to your point, it's a big learning curve. We meet once a month. Yeah. It's I mean,

it's there's a lot to it. It's a vested interest.

Yeah. If I can advertise, there are often partial terms available. So, you know, if you happen to see any

partial terms come up,

you would be I'm just saying.

Alternate for

as many

as I can. Unexpired terms. Yeah. There you go.

We just signed up for

some That's totally I appreciate the conversation. Yeah. As as somebody who

lives I'm not gonna dedicate That's

just a saying to apply to more because

Yeah. You should put

Just I I misspoke when I said all the boards and commissions are four year terms. The personnel advisory and appeals board is six year terms. There's only three members. So they do three members on staggered six year terms, but they tie together in terms of term limits. So before I move on to term limits, is everybody okay with staggered four year terms?

Yes. Yeah.

Okay. Mhmm. Then we get to term limits, and it wasn't in these suggestions, but it was one of mister Foster's and other several other people's suggestions regarding other term limits. There's this language in here, it's the second to last sentence in this section. You'll you'll see it repeated six or seven different times for other boards and commissions.

No members shall serve more than three consecutive full four year terms. And that has ended up, you know, creating well, why is the word consecutive in there? Does that mean I can serve for, three consecutive terms, go off and come back Or does that mean, like, you know, go off, go on, go off, go on kind of a thing? And I think it was I didn't understand the suggestion at first, but, mister Foster's suggestion, it's it's just below where we're looking. It's on line 44 for 9.01, but it's perfectly applicable here as well.

His suggestion, and I believe some of the others, was to literally say no more than three full terms. So what that would mean is you could be appointed to an unexpired term. And as long as you didn't serve more than three full terms either before or after that Yeah. That would be your limit. And I think taking the word consecutive out there, that would mean, you know, you could do four now, four twenty years from now, and four forty years from now if you're that crazy.

So

Yeah. That would be that would be a simple fix of removing full three full four

Mhmm.

Three removing the word consecutive. And I thought that was an interesting suggestion because I I've seen quirks and ways around it. In the past, there were people you could be appointed to fill I don't know if it's still the same, but when I came on the commission, there's somebody who'd been on for, like, know, a long almost fifteen years because they were appointed to an unexpired term and then served three full and you can get to a long I served a full twelve and that was a long time.

And I'm

glad there's a limit. But other one, what what do you think of the idea of taking out the word consecutive?

I'm not sure that fixes the problem entirely. My concern is that there's a lack of clarity about three, four year terms. So is that in your lifetime, in your lie is that in your present residency in Hudson? Because I do know people who have lived in Hudson, went away for a while, and decided to come back. I'm more interested I think I think it I think if we were able to pull all of these sentences out of each of the areas where we find them and have one section addressed to service to the city on boards and commissions that was more detailed.

I know in this situation related to the planning commission, we've had people serve two terms then go off either to BCBA or the ARC board and then the one or two terms, and then they come back to planning commission for one or and and it's a flip flop. Like, it just keeps on going. Well, is our talent pool really that limited? Shouldn't we maybe look at the broader thing? So if I was to add my time of service with the cemetery board and then which was a term and a half, and then the planning commission, I've served once this term is over, I will have served two and a half terms.

Maybe the question is that we either move the person through, like, in the next is coming my personnel group or tax group or whatever whatever the the border commission is so that we encourage the development of new leadership within the city. So so I'm gonna play that back. Okay.

Could it be something along the lines of no individual may serve more than two terms on a single board or commission? So if they're dedicated to public service and they want to spend the next thirty years on different boards, I think that's fine, but they can't spend all thirty on a board or ten years go away, ten years go away. So I wonder if one potential solution is by specifying the number of terms, whether they're separate or consecutive, the number of terms or time a person can spend on a board. So this way, you don't I am completely making up an example. Right.

Somebody serves twelve years on the planning commission, goes away for two years, and then comes back and serves another twelve years on the planning commission. Right? So I'd spent twenty four of whatever, twenty six or twenty eight years. To your point, like, let's get some fresh blood in there. And while I do value skill and experience, I think that skill and experience maybe could better serve the community by sharing it on other boards. So by specifying either a number of terms or a number of years that someone can serve on a board, I think that takes care of the issue.

That's what we have that's what we have now.

Oh, there you go. Well,

let me let me play devil's advocate on this, mister Foster. How hard is it for a city council to find people to sit on boards and commissions?

Depends entirely on the border commission. You know, some of them are a pretty heavy lift. Planning commission, BCBA, they're they're pretty tough. Cemetery is not very appealing to a lot of people. They just don't like to deal with that topic. Some of the other boards and commissions are easier. But we have seen people who have served, you know, twelve years on one board and gone to another and then come back to the very same board. That's happened. So people have served more than twelve years on one given board. I would argue that over eight is super helpful on some boards, BCBA and Planning Commission in particular.

Having that well of knowledge, the experience from the individual who's been on BCBA, remembers the why behind a number of decisions in the past is really helpful. But then having somebody who has been on there so long that there is no new thinking in the process. So you wouldn't want somebody there sixteen or twenty I wouldn't want somebody there sixteen or twenty years. I don't even believe somebody should be on council that long. So, you know, personally, I I had made the recommendation because I think 12 is probably enough on any given board or commission, but, you know, I'm happy to defer to all of you here.

I I would just say some are harder to get people on than others. Yeah.

And and just to piggyback off of that, I I have to ask the question. If we're gonna be very particular about term limits for boards and commissions, why are we not talking about term limits for city council members?

It's article three.

Okay.

Does this just listening to the comments, if you remove the word consecutive after three

takes all the questions.

It takes well, then then you can serve it in any number of order. You could do two, then skip some years and come back. So is it just consecutive that's the problem?

I didn't know when I first started seeing the suggestions, but then when I looked into it and I I saw it because, you know, it it just sounded like a logical a really logical suggestion because it takes the question out of it. If it says, and this is just for this board, we're just talking about park board, but we're thinking ahead to when we're gonna see

all the others. Mhmm.

But this is just about park board. It means you can only serve twelve years on park board. It doesn't matter when, now Yep. Till the cows come home. That's that's it. End of story. And I don't think that there should be any that that should create any question or opportunity for a future council to say, well, you know, it just says consecutive. We can bring it back later and do three three more or 12 more consecutive, at a time. And, I've seen kind of the gymnastics that have been done to do that. So I'm all for taking taking the ability to do gymnastics away, in this case, and, I I think that would be a logical suggestion.

To miss I think what miss Norman was suggesting was something completely different, and if I'm describing it incorrectly, tell me. But this was a should we have in the city of Hudson an overall limit on the number of years that a human being can provide service to the city as a board and commission member? I don't particularly I don't I don't think so. It's my opinion would be no because I think I mean, if I did twelve years on the planning commission and and and at some point in time, if if it's gonna be a what does that mean? Like, I can't

I couldn't serve you commission.

Right. Yeah. Right. Three times. With all the skill set that

you Right. Provide. No.

I just think if there's there's opportunity

I think the purpose for the twelve years is to get the fresh blood in, prevent the stagnancy, and force counsel to find other people to fill things. But if there's somebody who's really good and and contributing, I think counsel be in a great position to say, hey. You're term limited, but would you ever consider This one over here. There's great opportunities, and so I I would hate to take that away.

Yeah.

Your points are noted. How do we make this lifetime as opposed to residency related? So for the person who lived here for eight years, let's make it ten because they spent two getting ready to serve. Mhmm. And they spent eight years on let's just take planning commission. Then they move away. I don't care how long they move away. One year, ten years, they come back. Now do they only have one more four year term available to them, or are we starting the clock all over?

Mister Pitchford, tell me if I'm wrong. If I'm John Smith, I'm John Smith now, and I'm John Smith thirty years from now, John Smith sixty years from now, and come back, which I have three times, I'm the same person. And if it says member of Park Board, I can only serve on Park Board for twelve years. That's that's it.

Are you clear? So assuming that you've removed the word consecutive

Yes.

Yeah. I I would agree with your interpretation that it I think that the idea of lifetime is implied while I do accept the the concept. I mean, that's what good good lawyers do. Right? We Right. Come up and we

I'm just here to rain on your parade. Right. Right.

But I I my, you know, my my opinion would be I would I would be more comfortable arguing the position that, yes, it

is a

lifetime than arguing that position per se.

Okay. K. So it

it seems to me what we're trying to balance is making sure we have qualified people that can serve on these boards and not getting stale. Right? You don't want somebody basically being a lifer and controlling their little kingdom for way too long. I fully get that. And we want fresh ideas. You want different ideas, but obviously you want competency too. So and I know what we're talking about is changing to eliminate consecutive to just say, okay, lifetime, you can only do three. That's one option. Would we consider changing it to two consecutive? You can only serve eight years in a row on a single board.

You could certainly go serve a different board, but then maybe you're like after serving another board, bring a different experience to come back to a commissioner board where you're even more valuable ten years more down the road. So all of these are appointed. Right? Council gets to choose, do we want a tenured person because we don't have any good leadership on that board, or do we want somebody who's got new fresh ideas? So at some level there's protection of, you know, putting a veteran in a spot that they shouldn't be in because council gets to appoint them.

And it would be a different counsel perhaps twenty years down the road. So I mean, eight years is almost a decade. Right? Like, things change a lot in ten years, in eight years. So is eight consecutive or two consecutive terms a better way to look at this?

Not advocating one way or the other, but I'll add to that that if you were to do something like that, you could also include a cool off period. Right? So in other words, two consecutive and you must sit off of this board for another term or another

Another term or two years or

eight years or whatever. And that that would necessarily because otherwise, you might have somebody come back and be appointed to the next unexpired term. Right. Right? The the following, you know, March, for example. So it you adding that extra clause, you would eliminate that game and shift to to more achieve your your intent. Another something I'm gonna add in to kind of even make this even a little more complex. You know, and and I haven't looked at the language yet, but if you you know, it exists obviously for the president of United States. It also these term limits, two term two two terms also exist for all of the state executive officers. But what about the unexpired term?

Thank you. So you actually end up if you make it years, all of a sudden if somebody gets appointed to a non expired term and they get reappointed, if it's twelve years, all of a sudden in their third term, bang, they're out after two years. Is that what we're intending? So there's that may be the and we haven't addressed it. Frankly, the charter doesn't address unexpired terms at all. It just says Right. Full terms. Right. Full so do we keep appointing Joe or whoever to, you know, four unexpired terms different times and and through on? We haven't accounted for that. Not that we have to. I mean, these some of these things just take care of themselves, but it's also just one mother one other thing to to think about.

I might and and I've I've always understood the three term thing to being twelve years. I've seen how people have how people have gotten around it, and I completely understand. That's that's fine. If the language is unclear, then you get then you can get around it. But, I think the consecutive would take care removing the consecutive would take care of the, come back issue. It's three terms throughout your life. The unexpired term thing, I would say, I might suggest adding or twelve years, whichever is greater.

Yeah. I

think we need to.

Otherwise, then it's you know, I've served twelve years on the planning commission, then basically, I've served three consecutive terms. Full four year terms. So basically, every time between now and the end of time that an unexpired term on the planning commission comes up, I could apply for it. And technically, serve another thirty years on the planning commission and not violate I'd have to get off after the end of unexpired term.

Or you could create one by resigning. You could create so serve two full terms. You get elected to your third term. Two years in, you're like, I'm gonna retire and travel the world. See you later. And then, you know, there comes in a vacancy for for good reasons. Somebody has moved away, what have you. But but council

still needs to appoint you, so you still need to offer value to be appointed to that that commission. So I I yeah. I would think there are definitely people that have enjoyed being a part of something for a very long time and having their stamp on things. But I think most people that wanna get involved in public service are doing because they wanna make a difference. And so I anyway, I I think limiting the consecutive terms would be a nice solution because you're then always getting change, but then if somebody is qualified and the council decides they want somebody to do that same board because they have experience from a decade prior, they're eligible.

And and they could serve another two two terms in a row because they're that valuable at that time if they were the right person. My

concern is that this loophole has already been abused, and so so it seems like carried away, but the reality is if we leave a loophole on the table, it will get abused in the future.

Which loophole though are you talking about?

I'm not the with the consecutive terms, yet you can't serve the consecutive. So they don't serve three consecutive terms. They go off to another board and serve one term and then come back and they serve two more terms that are consecutive and they never serve that third consecutive term. Because it's not accumulating the total. Right. Right. So so the twelve year

How are they getting appointed? I guess is the question. Why do they

keep getting appointed? It's politics. Okay. It's what it is.

Well, then we need to expect more from counsel.

We are finally. I understand this.

Right? I mean, that's so I anyway, a limit of terms, I think, is a very important thing. I think how we skin that cat is what is in discussion.

So I'll throw out proposal to remove the word consecutive and add or twelve years, whichever greater just for the sake of discussion.

And so no more than twelve years on any one On

this we're talking about park board. So

I'm thinking of all the other boards as well.

Whichever solves my point about getting appointed to the unexpired term, and then I would frankly, when I would draft it up, I would I would say, I might consider how we might use the word appoint as opposed to serve. If you read it, it just says serve. Right? So you can only be appointed to to three that right? Serving, you know, that's the full term. Right? If you say whichever is greater, I think that you can either serve or you're appointed. But whichever is greater, you can still have you can be appointed to a two years and then the next time the full comes up, then you end up serving fourteen years under your language, whichever is greater. So it would be three full terms. That's the greatest even though Or twelve. Yeah. Right.

Serve but serve is the word not No member shall be no member shall be appointed to more than three full four year terms and no member shall serve more than twelve years.

If you've been appointed early, if you served an earlier unexpired term, you're gonna get to the middle of your full term and you're gonna be out if you put a twelve year hard stop on it. By using the word whichever is greater, you you allow the person to serve the first two years of their again, my example let's say use two years. My example is the the president dies and the vice president becomes president. He he or she serves out the rest of that term and then has the opportunity to be elected two more times. That's what I'm trying to capture and say yes. And I think that's what you're Something. That's what by saying whichever is greater, it it does that. That that's the effect. But if you just say twelve years, they cannot serve like they're out midway through their term. And it might actually create some ambiguity in Would

you all be open to seeing something like that drafted

options. Even may maybe a few options. Just that whatever is the most prescriptive in the number of ways you've heard us describe it or at least maybe two options would be

Yeah. Nice.

Okay. Two options. At least at least two options if not more.

Yeah. Okay. And then you can explain to us what they mean.

So then we have and I think nine we're o'clock. We had several suggestions related to eight point o four, which relate to larger issues, and combination. Do we wanna stop here and then pick up with nine point or eight point o four when we come back? Yeah. Yeah. Good. Alright.

This will probably take some

time. Yes. Alright. I do think that we got through quite a bit. Mhmm. Alright.

I'm gonna make a note where we stopped. Remember the last time we stopped in the middle of one? Alright.

So we are deferring on remainder of Article eight, all of Article nine. We do have a second opportunity for public comments. Is there anyone else who would wish to address the commission again? Hearing none, action items. Our next meeting will be on April 16, which is in two weeks. This is

our first two

week interim. Everything else been longer. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I make the motion that we

adjourn. Second.

Moved by Ms. Griffith, second by miss Ben Larry, to adjourn at 09:02PM.

All those in favor, please say Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. This meeting is adjourned at 09:02PM.