Personnel Advisory & Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

Right. Good evening, everyone. Tonight is Wednesday, 05/07/2025. The time is 07:02PM. This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Hudson, Ohio Charter Review Commission.

C Hall. I will begin with a after calling the meeting to order. Roll call. Mr. Hall? Present. Ms. Griffith?

Present.

Mr. Hoover? Here.

Ms. McCoy? Here. Ms. Norman? Here. Mr. Ryan? Here. Ms. Spitalari? Here. Is here. And mister Bandweg? Here.

A quorum even without Mr. Trainer. So we will move on to item three, which is approval of minutes. You received in the packet sent to you by Aparna on Friday the draft minutes of the previous Charter Review Commission meeting on April 16, which I believe was three weeks ago. Is there a motion to approve that?

Motion to approve.

Mr. Ryan moved and Mr. Hall seconded. Aye. Miss Bidler? Aye. And mister Kaler? Aye. And one abstention, miss Norman abstain. Next.

Thank you all. Next is, item four, correspondence and commissioner comments. Just our, usual update. I'll start the in our packet in addition to the agenda and the minutes. We also received the updated chart that, Aparna has updated with suggestions that were received by the April 30 deadline that we set at our earlier meeting along with action items, action that we have taken on things that had been brought before us at the last meeting.

If you see anything that is incorrect or needs to be changed or supplemented, no there's no shame in pointing it out to me. Don't worry about it. I'm trying to do the best I can. And, just let me know, and we'll make sure we get it made accurate. We also received a I think I don't remember if it was with the initial packet or later.

It was an email from council member Kowalski. That was it was an email with some suggestions. That is not yet reflected on the chart. I'll get that reflected on the chart as well. This afternoon or today at some point, or maybe it was yesterday or today, we received an email from Moparna with a document that Ms.

Norman had provided with suggestions, specifically related to the cemetery board and board and commission, combination mergers in general. And also in the original packet on Friday, there was the updated list of board and commissions. You might ask why'd you receive that? There's only one change, and that was on the previous version of the chart. The comprehensive plan steering committee was listed as chartered.

It is not. So I had her make that correction. The comprehensive plan is mentioned in the charter, but there's no there's no mention of a comprehensive plan steering committee in the charter. That's something that council creates. The comprehensive plan, as it's mentioned in the charter, talks about being prepared and recommended by the planning commission and approved by the city council. But as part of assisting the Planning Commission with that process, the council has typically created a steering committee of one type or another. So not unchartered. So that's the only change to that. Next, let us know this is our let everyone know this is our seventh meeting, the seventh meeting of the Charter Review Commission. Our status to date, we have reviewed 14 of the 16 articles.

We're getting there. We have two articles left to review. Those include articles three, the council and four, the mayor. They're on our agenda tonight in a little bit of a reverse order. I also included the preamble.

Based on our action taken to date, we have identified several sections for, potential amendments to be drafted and brought back to us. I would anticipate that after tonight, depending on how things proceed, we'll be working I'll work with, Marshall to have something brought back to us for our meeting in early June. Ask you a question about the schedule you all a question about the schedule in a minute. I'm not gonna list all the sections, but there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, 13 sections that we've talked about amending. Seven of the 13 relate to changing the way in which term limits are worded for boards and commissions that are listed in the charter.

And then really, only other changes that are mentioned are single word changes, modification of the city's notice requirements for public hearings and things like that. Removing the requirement for a newspaper doesn't mean you don't you can't do it, but just it's not required, wouldn't be required. And then including provisions for an acting finance director in the absence of the finance director. Addition to the sections that we have reviewed already and the sec the articles and sections that we still have to review, there are kind of, I'll call them, three or four big issues that have been brought to us for consideration. And I'll just describe them generally and as well as where and when we might and how we might discuss them.

The first would be whether or not any of the boards and commissions listed in the charter or outside of the charter should be merged, changed, eliminated, added to within the charter. The boards and commissions that have been discussed in that regard include, but are but not limited to, the Park Board, the Tree Commission, the Cemetery Board, which are all within the charter, and the Environmental Awareness Committee, which is not in the charter but a council created committee. Miss Norman has provided some thoughts on that, in her document that was provided to you tonight. I've been in the process of trying to do some history searching on all of them, And I'm not quite done with it yet, and I'd like to bring back just kind of like a, gut check, reality check of not a this is what I recommend. This is a little bit of the history, how we got to where we are, and these are the issues that are before us.

Try to peel the onion a little bit and distill it. I hope we'll hope to get that done shortly and have it to you so we can discuss it in an upcoming meeting. The second of the three or four big issues was the possibility of adding the Military Veterans Commission to the charter. That would be a separate section to be added. The third was whether or not, ranked choice voting should be added in some form to the the charter.

That'll be that's a larger issue. And then depending on where we come down on the larger issue, it may or may not result one or more sections of the charter being amended for that respect. I did read that there's a bill working its way through the legislature, which may or may not, is I don't don't want to I don't know one side of it or the other, but it's my understanding that what it would do is essentially penalize from a government or from a, state government, local government sharing funding sharing perspective communities that do, in some form, right choice voting. That's still up in the air. It's often in the at the state level.

It's kind of related to but not determinative to our discussion. But that will certainly be a part of our consideration when we come back. And then lastly, on the three or four issues, the other big issue was the suggestion that would be to it was a suggestion made to add some form of, and I'm paraphrasing, some form of qualifications or requirements to the Charter's ranting authority for the city to use taxpayer funding for outside organizations. And I've been in the process of trying to, get get to the bottom of that a little bit. And I'll I have gained some information.

I'll have some more, but I'll have that as part of what I bring back to you at the next meeting, which brings me to our next meeting is scheduled in four weeks from today, which is June 4. After that, we would have one or two meetings scheduled, June 18 and June 25. June 18 is two weeks after June 4. June 25 is one week after June 18. So it's kinda like instead of front ended, it's back ended, tight.

And I'm always a worst case scenario, scheduler worried that we're not going to get work done. And I'd rather us not, be stuck at the end having to I think at the five years ago, we had to add another meeting on July 1, And it was just a pain in the neck with fourth of July, but everybody I would like not to have to do that to everyone. So we have four weeks between our next meeting. I had looked I'd like to ask the commission's consideration for an additional meeting between now and June 4. And my two options were either next Wednesday, which would be June or May 14 or two weeks after that, which would be May 28.

May 28, Mr. Pitchford was available. The only one who was not based on our earlier check was Ms. Griffith. I think Ms. Norman had said no on the

I know I know now that I will be back in town for an event on the twenty seventh, so I'll be here on the twenty eighth. But I don't seem to have brought my calendar.

Okay.

So I'd I'd have to but the things have changed.

So On the fourteenth, which is a week from tonight, mister Pitchford, last check was not available. Is that correct? Yep. That'd be a a week from next Wednesday. It'd be next Wednesday.

And at that meeting, everyone, all nine were available. Everybody that's that would be we'd get the whole commission here if we could be here.

That would be the fourteenth? That

let's would if we can consider that, scheduled, I'll let Aparna know. But, if you could also do that, what we need to do from a notice perspective, that'd be great. Thank you all for that consideration. Okay. That's all I had to, bring to your attention. Are there any other correspondence or comments? Things you've heard? Item five, We have two parts on our agenda with two opportunities for public comments. One is right now. I'd like to address the commission.

If you could when I, please gain my attention and when I give you my attention, I would ask you to please approach the podium, identify yourself by name and address, and then if possible, please confine your comments to five minutes and address your comments to me as Chair, and we will take your comments. Would anyone else or would anyone like to address the commission? Yes, sir. Yes, please.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Basil Mustnuff. I have the distinct pleasure of serving as the President of the Board of Trustees of the Hudson Library and Historical Society. I know you've heard from the library before, but I was out of town and I

Sorry about my stuff. Could you mention your address for the

Oh, I'm so sorry. Yes, 7645 Hudson Park Drive. Thanks. And we've submitted written comments as well. I see you've got a lot of things to review as far as proposals for change.

I'm hoping to take a couple of those off your plate. And those are the ones involving the proposals regarding the library because in our estimation and in our research, they're illegal. And I'll start out. What's proposed is that city council be given the power to refuse to put a library levy on the ballot unless the library board elections are administered by the board of elections just like government post are. Now keep in mind that we are not a part of the city government.

The Hudson Library is a private five zero one(three) organization. And to be to become on to have a levy to fund us, we need to come to a taxing authority like city council. As the law is right now, city council does not have any discretion whether to put our levy on the ballot or not. If we come to them with a levy that we want to present to the voters of the town, it's their duty to put it on the ballot. The statute says the taxing authority shall put it on the ballot.

City council doesn't have the power to get us to change what we're seeking as far as a levy amount. It doesn't have the power to put conditions on placing the levy on the ballot. But that's exactly what this is trying to do. It's trying to create out of thin air a power to deny us a place on the ballot. And we think it's therefore illegal.

This is what's called the duty of city council in this situation under the law is what we would call a mandatory ministerial duty. Just like the clerk of courts has a mandatory ministerial duty to issue a marriage license to two people who come with the correct paperwork. It's not up to the clerk to determine who gets to get married or not. If you have the paperwork, you get married. Same thing here.

If we come with a levy that's valid on all fours legally, it has to go on the ballot. And that's what's being challenged here, trying to make us change the way we govern our organization in order to get access to the ballot. And we think it's in violation of Ohio law, and I assume you all swore an oath to uphold Ohio law in this endeavor. The second thing that's illegal, among many things, is that it requires our elections to be held or be conducted by the board of elections. But we're an independent c three five zero one c three nonprofit.

We're not a public entity. The board of elections can't hold our elections. They they don't have jurisdiction. They don't have statutory authority to do so. The board election only, elections only has authority or authorization to administer elections for public offices, ballot initiatives, referendums, and school boards, not for private entities, including nonprofits.

And that doesn't change by the fact that we actually receive monies through the tax through a tax levy. And even if they're not illegal, we would think this proposal is a bad idea. The city government, if they would like to run a library, they have the power to do that. Lots of cities do. Stowe does.

Twinsburg does. But this library was not formed by the city government. This library was formed by the citizens of the city, independent of their government. It has always been funded by the citizens of the community, independent of the city government. And it's been managed by the citizens of this community, independent of the city government.

And in the entire time I've been associated with the library as a board member, we have ranked among the one top 1% of libraries in this country. So it's working. Mr. Hoover had a his wife was a great member of our Board and can probably attest to the great management and staff that we have at the library who are doing wonderful things for this community. I would ask that you reject these proposals, have the city government stay in its lane and let us run the library. Thank you.

That's enough. Would anyone else like to address the I

had a question for the witness. Yeah. I just wanted to go back to one of your earlier points. You indicated that, you said counsel has no discretion about whether to put one of the, tax levy, requests onto the ballot. Now I recall that we heard a different, story or interpretation of that of that from another, witness in a previous meeting.

So so what my understanding before you came tonight, what my understanding was is that counsel could be, accommodating and put that issue on the ballot for you, or they could choose not to, and you could seek that from another taxing authority such as a school board organization. Are you saying that that's an incorrect understanding?

Absolutely incorrect. Okay. They cannot reject it. No discretion to reject

And you have an Ohio revised codes citation for that?

I do I I can get that for you easily.

I would appreciate that. Yeah.

No problem.

Okay. I don't have any other questions.

If I could just add to that, request. Yes. If you could send that request to me, and I'd be happy to circulate it to the commission. And if there's also any

The request to the statute,

you mean? The response to the request, yes, the statute. Okay. And I was gonna

ask Marshall, can talk. I can do anything you want.

And and I was gonna

add to the the request of the like, the case law. I understand, ministerial duties and and how those work and mandamus actions and all that. I I read the letter that you assigned previous, and I, kind of chuckled because it looked like all of it looked like a letter written by a lawyer, such as yourself with all of the legal citations removed. So I would love to to, discuss with you exactly, the full the full throttle.

I am what I am, Marshall. Happily, I will just note that on the library's website, there are links to the e mail addresses of all Board members. If any of you have questions that you'd like me to address, I can come back. I think, I don't know, maybe with open meetings laws, I can't really can I address them through e mail? I guess I could. But anyway, I'm happy to come back to address any questions that you might have about these positions. Marshall, I'm happy to talk to you about them. But I thank you for your time. It's been a pleasure being here.

Yeah. Mr. Musnoff as well, I know we had discussed earlier. I just wanted to say, as I was saying earlier, I think there are some differing opinions on the legality.

I understand that you say that.

But I think what is valuable in this is the open discussion about it. Because, as you've indicated, City Council has certain responsibilities. Running the library is not one of them, but representing the voice of the residents is. And if there's enough commentary, that is purpose of bringing it into the public forum for discussion. As I was saying, I have not dictated any mechanisms nor have any of the comments.

And your comment about being run by the BOE, I just wanted to clarify that. If it's been misstated, there is something like the BOE. So in an open formal way, commentary has been around absentee voting types of things that could be suggestive. And I know you indicated that you would have preferred a personal invitation or notification that we were discussing this. And I think

It would have been courteous, I think.

And likewise, we indicated that you have a meeting that I have not been invited to with a personal invitation either. So I think we could agree that maybe personal communication could improve

Of course.

But there is value in the public discussion of this so that we could all improve.

And I will differ with you in one respect.

Okay. I'm inter interject here for a minute. Before we go down a the library rabbit hole

Yeah. The It's not on the agenda. We're not it's not our article.

The question that was brought to the the Charter Review Commission, the suggestion, was whether or not the charter should include any type of language that qualifies paraphrasing the types of organizations or the qualifications for how funding may or may not be raised from taxpayers. And I think that although the it may very well be that the largest impact of the answers to those questions may be on the library and the city's relationship with it. I think the issue before the commission at this time is more the policy issue, accountability of funding, governance of an organization, and the authority of the city to either have power and if we can have that policy discussion at some point. That point in time, if there are any legal questions and I assume that I'm gathering from the conversation back and forth, Mr. Mussoff, that you're an attorney as well?

Yes. And Marshall and I used to work together.

Well, you're an attorney, and we absolutely respect that. But, with all due respect, the only attorney that has the right to tell a border city of the of a border commission of the city that something is legal or illegal is the gentleman to my right who is the city solicitor. So regardless of your opinion of whether something may be illegal or not, it will be up to mister Pitchford to tell this commission whether something is legal or not. So we appreciate your input. If you are able to provide any specific references to Ohio law that dictate why you believe something may be illegal And Mr.

Pitchford, at the appropriate time, can evaluate that and then report his conclusions to the commission, will appreciate that. But at this point in time, I think the continued back and forth about what I'll call the library rabbit hole is not something that's really productive for the commission's discussion. Happy to have offline discussions. Any communication to the commission should be through the commission, not individually to commission members or from individually from commission members to other individuals as well. The benefit that the taxpayers get and the residents get from our discussions is that they all occur right here at this table. So thank you very much. We

appreciate it.

Thank you for the time. I really do appreciate Absolutely.

Would anyone else like to address the commission?

Yes. Mister Ravida had a sample. Okay. Yeah.

I saw that. Mister Ravida. And I apologize. I let that go a little past five minutes, so, we're starting at, 07:27. So

Anthony Revita. 1746 Edgar Drive. I'm bringing this to the attention of this board. We had, some discussion at the council meeting, and I, gave notice to the council of what's going on in, city council, the city manager, and I wanna put this on record for the board. I come today and request mister Foster, mister Sheridan, and mister Hannon be suspended and then possibly removed from their current positions. Investigated by the Ohio attorney general office, All three have displayed a suspicion of corruption

I'm sorry, mister Ravita. Coercion. Mister Ravita, we're the we're the Charter Review Commission. Do you have anything to be brought forward to the Charter

Review this I commission. Okay. And they said that, during one of your meetings is that you discussed if the city manager would be, suspended or removed and you gave the language of this. Right. So that's why I'm here is because I'm reporting what it is that you had reported on

Well, just couple

weeks ago.

Just to clarify, what we discussed was not the the city manager as a person or city officials as individuals. We discussed the city charter and provisions that are in the city charter regarding those issues that you're representing. So if you have any comments regarding the charter itself, we'd be happy

to take I believe this would what this statement is does Alright. Does that. Okay. An investigation by the Ohio attorney general's office, all three have displayed a suspicion of corruption, coercion, fraud, taking bribes, and breaking city laws. Sunshine laws, and conflict of interest between government officials and city contractors. Mister Sheridan has willfully perjured himself on 04/08/2025 on HCTV. Mister Sheridan spoke to the city council and the city of Hudson that mister Foster work was done on July

Excuse me, mister Ravida. Just, again, I bring to your attention, you are mentioning individuals and you're mentioning allegations. We are here to discuss the city of Hudson's charter. Do you have any comments or questions about

how this would do is affect the charter? So I want your opinion on what the charter what I'm telling you and how the charter applies to it.

What I've heard so far, and and if there's something else I'm missing, is you're talking about individuals who are either employed by or elected to represent the city of Hudson. And the charter, although it it creates rules regarding those things, the charter is not involved in the removal or excuse me. The this this board is involved in the, any potential amendments to the charter that may affect the rules regarding that.

That's exactly what I'm doing, is giving you the examples that affect the charter.

Can I add just maybe for clarity? If you had a specific rule you were looking to change, that's the nature of the discussions here as opposed to a particular situation. So if you wanna highlight the rule or the element of the charter that you're looking to change

And to to clarify, just if you're talking about removal of, say, of, you mentioned a council member, a city employee, and the city manager. The the section of the charter regarding removal of a council member, section 3.13, Do you have any comments or suggestions about Section 3.13 of the charter?

I don't know that. Can you tell me what it is?

It is available for public viewing.

I'm up here now. Do you have some brief that you

We're can tell me what here to take comments about the charter itself and any suggestions that people have to be made to the charter itself.

I was

told to come here and put this on the record in front of the the the board and then leave. And that's what I'm doing. I'm giving you the information. Whatever you do with it, you do with it.

I'm a I'm I apologize. I I I missed it. You were did did I say something in a previous meeting to please come to the meeting and and present that information?

This is a five minutes of a citizen talking.

Absolutely. About the charter that the commission

is I believe this affects

the charter.

Then please proceed.

I'm gonna make it simple. If this charter of this city, allows the council president, the city manager, and, mister Hannon to, break the law. I'm looking for some relief from this board to see what, that you can possibly do to help me out to, instead of putting it all on console, does this board have the authority or, you know, give direction of what I should do at this point because these are serious allegations.

That conclude

That's it. Okay.

Just in as as an answer, would the comments and questions that you're making, not assigning any validity or invalidity to them. Appreciate you coming coming before the commission. But the comments you are making relate to employment and service of elected and elected officials and employees. This commission is not involved. That is an that is an act of, in terms of that is more an act of ongoing administrative administration of the city government.

Removal of an elected official is there are powers under the charter to to do that type of thing. There are powers that the council has to remove the city manager that are in the charter. There are powers that the city manager has to remove employees that are authorized by the council through ordinance in in the charter. But this commission's charge is I don't want to say nearly because it's not unimportant. It's this commission's charge is to review the charter every five years and review whether or not any sections to the charter, should be amended.

And if we believe that, we recommend that to council. It goes on the ballot and the city votes on it. That is this commission's role, nothing more, nothing less.

Okay. And then it was my mistake. Thank you.

I apologize.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?

Hello, and good evening. Jeff Anzavino, 6661 Regal Woods Drive here in Hudson, Ohio. I do have several submissions that are on the agenda for tonight. I do not feel the need to go into those in any more detail. I think they're pretty self explanatory.

But there are some other submissions by other members or people within the city that I would like to address very briefly. And it really regards to Article three and Article four. In the City Of Hudson, we have our charter. If something is not spelled out in the charter, we then default to our codified ordinances. If our codified ordinances are silent, then we look to Robert's Rules of Order, which is spelled out that the City of Hudson will utilize Robert's Rules of Order.

So that's a codified ordinance. So Robert's Rules of Order, newly revised twelfth edition. And again, in regards to some of the comments, from other members that are submitted, I want to read two sections of Robert's Rules of Order. Section 61.2 states, and this is verbatim, punishments that a society can impose generally fall upon the headings of censure with a footnote, which we'll read in a moment Fine, if authorized in the bylaws, suspension or expulsion. The extreme penalty that an organization or society can impose on a member is expulsion.

And again, back to that footnote on censure. That footnote says, it is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary act procedures. This council did that without formal disciplinary actions because they were not seeking any penalties. So Robert's Rules of Order state that we can absolutely do that as a council body or the City Of Hudson's council body can do that. So I believe in the last couple of centuries, that was handled appropriately and properly.

Another comment that had come up from a sitting council member was that they did not have their due process and that is submitted in some of the documents here tonight. I'm going to then skip to Robert's Rules of Order Section 61.22, offenses elsewhere than in a meeting. Obviously, something that happens outside of our agenda and our meeting. It says, if improper conduct by a member of a society occurs elsewhere than a meeting, the members generally have no firsthand knowledge of the case. And I'm going to stop right there because on the last couple of centers that this council did vote and pass, the members had explicit knowledge of the case.

We had several discussions. We had several executive sessions. So my point in the last censure that was brought forth was that 61.22 does not apply because it specifically states if members generally have no firsthand knowledge. We had firsthand knowledge as council did. And then it goes on to say, therefore, if disciplinary action is to be taken, charges must be preferred in a formal trial held before the assembly of the society or before a committee standing or special.

Again, that does not apply because the members of this council had firsthand knowledge. So when you get to the sections and the submissions in Articles four and three tonight, I would just like you to keep that in mind. Again, we follow the charter. We then go to codified ordinances. The codified ordinances call out the use of Robert's Rules of Order for Hudson City Council. And I just read you two very important pieces that I believe we followed to the tee. Thank you.

Anyone else like to address the commission? Item seven, which is review of articles. We're going to start with the preamble. So I think for that, we have two things. One is the actual preamble.

Way back on page one, and it's a whopping three lines long. And the second is I'll find it in the right place. Miss Norman's did you get that at the last meeting or the week meeting before?

I believe it was circulated in this packet as well. You may have gotten it at the last meeting. Yeah.

It's not

a second.

The second. No. This is a a singular page memo that I wrote up. The second copy, I'm told.

I have an extra one if anybody needs it.

The preamble revision.

Yes. Yes.

Do you

have the next one?

I do. You can borrow it. Here you go. Oh,

you got it? No. I I knew I was looking at it. Alright. So the preamble itself, which we did read once before, skipped over and then did everything else.

But then, we, at that time, miss Norma miss Norman had made some, comments that perhaps we should look at some other things. And she took, the time, and we appreciate that, and brought back something to us. So the current language in the in the charter for the preamble is we, the people of the municipality of Hudson, Ohio, in order to secure home rule and to preserve the character of the community, do adopt the following charter for the government of the community. And so I'll now turn over to miss, Norman. You wanna give us a cliff notes version of what you looked at and what you'd to do?

Thank you, mister chair. So from city solicitor, I had a handout. I believe the rest of us got this as well. Am I right? Mhmm. Okay. Thank you. From just reporting on preambles from surrounding communities across Ohio, that included Avon Bay Village, Blue Ash, Gahanna, Lakewood, Macedonia, Mayfield, Plain City, Reminderville, Riverside, and Toledo. And I just went through and read them all. Some of them are quite flowery and have great lofty ideas.

Others have clearly been amended within recent, I'll say, a decade, because they have incorporated language that is indicative of of the present times and some of the political jargon that gets used. And I felt like it was a more important thing to keep this as clean and as simple as possible. So I'm sure that whoever said we should keep the words preserve the character of the community in thought it was a great idea at the time, but it doesn't feel like, to me, that's the real purpose of what the preamble is. We're here about more than just the character of the community. We're here about the governance of the community.

So I proposed a revision that reflects that, that we, the people of the of Hudson, Summit County, Ohio city of Hudson, Summit County, Ohio, in order to secure for ourselves the fullest measure of home rule and self governance. I'm just gonna pause right there. We are a home rule state, and so declaring that in our preamble as a way of sort of capturing the intention, is a legal thing. Mister Pittsford, please disagree if you need to, but it's a legal sort of thing that sort of does that that lasso around the whole concept of home rule, and now we've set it, and so we've put it into the the charter as a method of of going forward. This is our intention, is about home rule.

Do adopt this charter to provide effective, efficient, and just administration of government for our citizens. And that last part is relatively self explanatory. I I took poetic license with the adjectives, but it felt like they were, aspirational goals that any charter review commission could probably accept. We we will appreciate effective government. I don't I don't think anyone's opposed to that.

We would all be striving for efficient government. So we've been looking to weed out redundancies or things where we see that there's overlap, boards and commissions, what have you. And just because at the end of the day, justice to the citizens is is important as well. Administration of our government is the thing that is happening through this charter. So, leftover were the questions that I put down at the bottom of this memo.

I noticed in Riverside's preamble, they gave a little nod to their history about whereas on 01/01/1994, the citizens of the I'm sorry. I'm giving too much drama here, but it is a little dramatic. The township and the village and they merged, whereas the electors of this new community and so they do give a nod to their history. Well, that sounds like us. We could have put that in.

I felt like it was flowery and extraneous, but that's my opinion. The other question is, do we feel it is necessary to reference the Ohio constitution and statutes? There are several preambles that make a reference to the constitution and the laws of Ohio, as in Gahanna Remindervill. Avon or Remindervill. And so legally, it's probably not that much import.

It is sort of maybe by implication since we're saying Ohio in the preamble that that's implicit. Maybe it needs to be more than that. Do we need to restate the police power language, which is for the general health, safety, and welfare of the people? I left it out because this is not an ordinance, and typically, when you're passing an ordinance that is utilizing the government's police power, you would include that, I'll call it magic language, which justifies the passing of an of a law. But this is not really a law per se.

It's a charter. It's a little bit different of a beast. And so I didn't I did not feel like it was important for us to say that. This is something voted on by the citizens, and they it'll either be their will or it will not be their will. So that's all of my commentary on that. Just

to start discussion, not pass judgment on it, the term municipality is used throughout the entire charter. I think Thank you. I would suggest if you're going to have it, that's why it says municipality because it started the charter has been in place since 1958, I think. And that the village it was a village it's always been a municipality, but it was a village from at that point until '94 until '91 when the village's population went over 5,000. And then it was a city for three years, and then it merged with the township and became a larger city. So it's always been a municipality ever since 1837, I think.

Let me ask a legal question then related to that. The the state statutes class the term, the class is city versus a village versus a township at all being governmental subdivisions, do we is there a legal significance to whether we use city, which is what I believe the statutes currently Before

you

Oh, sorry.

The community of public subdivisions either incorporated or not incorporated. If it's not incorporated, it's township. If it's incorporated, it's a municipality. There's two types of municipalities. Population of 5,000.

If it's

less than 5,000, it's a village. If it's 5,000 or more, it's city.

Okay. And then

within the municipal world, if you don't have charter, you're a statutory municipality. And if you have adopted a charter, you're a charter charter village, charter city, you're always a charter municipality. So that's where a lot of times when municipalities become charter municipalities, they're a village. And they put the word municipality in the charter so that they don't have to go through and change the word village to city whenever So the population goes

I'm going to withdraw my question. Don't answer that, Mr. Pitchman. That makes a lot sense. The word in my answer.

Okay. My only other comment about the draft, which I think it was very well thought out, just to hear everybody else's comment, was the, quote, the That kind of jumped out at me. And I what's the difference between securing for ourself home rule and self governance versus the fullest measure of home rule and governance? What what was going through your mind?

It was it was, I would call it mostly poetic license Mhmm. And I think probably borrowed from somebody else, and it it sounded appropriately dignified. I don't think it has legal significance in the in the way that the current Home Rule freedom is is written, that there there's no half. There's no half home rule. But I you know, we can't always comprehend everything that could change in the future.

And, hopefully, this wouldn't need to be changed ever again. I would love to to have that. But but fullest measure is truly an optional thing. And it's just it's just a statement of, like, we actually we not only want home rule, we want all the home rule. We're not leaving anything out. So whatever home rule we can get, we want it all. That's what Hudson wants. That's it.

Comments from anyone else?

Any question? By, I guess, emphasizing the false measure of home rule in self governance, you mentioned that doesn't necessarily protect us from any infringement the state might want to do down the line, does it, just by having it in here? Does it it's just kinda like, this is our opinion, but we like

We're always gonna be subject to the state's preemption on a topic. Marijuana would be a great example. You know, there are there are things the city can do about marijuana dispensaries and zoning and and those kinds of things, but they can't necessarily, substitute their opinion. And I'm gonna say necessarily. That's my legal footnote because there are always exceptions to every rule. But but, if the state has present preempted a city on a particular topic, the city can't be in in derogation of the state law because they say so. They just correct, Mr. Pitchford?

I might say it's slightly different, but the import of what you're saying is correct. Okay. Yes. It's a longer answer.

Got it.

I'll just make an observation. I do like the comments and the additions the comments that we've discussed and the additions of the second portion, the efficient, effective pieces there. I think my takeaway from what you've drafted is that if I came back five years from now and read a preamble that was scripted that way, it would be a little bit of a guiding light for the rest of the charter. We would be going back and saying, is this promising and efficient charter? This is promising and effective charter?

And I think that I really think as small as that is, it may actually bring big changes because this is, in some ways, this is wordy. And in some ways, there's a lot going on here. And I just wonder if the next Charter Review Commission held themselves to be efficient and just reminded themselves of this. Whereas the current preamble to me, and this is my words, is just a preamble blurb. Right? Like, it just doesn't read like it's an important guiding light. So I do support the changes. I think there's some tweaks here or there, but I really like what you've written.

Mr. Chairman, I agree. For I think I can speak for all of us. Thank you. This was a lot of work, and I mean, I appreciate all of this. I think it's wonderful. Back to Mr. Kigler's comment on fullest measure, I could go without that. Just going back to some of your comments on, I hate to use this word fluff. I don't think it's fluff.

No, no, no. I'm not offended. Don't worry.

I think we could remove it and it becomes more efficient of a statement, more effective of a statement. It kinda doesn't draw my attention to those words that aren't needed, if you will. Sure. But I mean, Sure. I I also fully support

the change. Okay.

When I first saw the efficient, effective or effective, efficient, and just, I thought, well, why do we need that in there? But then at the end, I saw for our citizens that I really like to tie back

Mhmm.

To because now government. But it starts this way. It would start with the people, and it ends with the citizens. So I like the tieback. My only suggestions would be city to municipality and depending on what the group thinks, fullest measure take it. The thing that I worry about fullest measure is if we ever say we want to take the fullest measure of this and there is some way in which a municipality can exercise home rule and we haven't covered it in the charter, are we at some cut type of risk? And we said, we wanna take advantage of this, but we've not addressed it in here. So that's that's what

And I and I can't answer that question. So that might be a really good reason to not flirt with a contingency by just eliminating that. So and I'm not gonna go to the mat on on that. No. Will not. I was you know, my aspiration was to write something that everyone could kinda buy into, and the tweets don't bother me at all. If we otherwise got to it because we're not really about the character, we're better than that now. Mhmm.

Yeah. So in other words, what you're proposing is that we change the sentence in order to secure for ourselves home rule and self governance. So we're going to eliminate the words the fullest measure of.

I'd Yes. Change city and municipality.

Yes. I

like it. I think I understand the intent of fullest measure. To me, it feels kind subjective where somebody could always say, well, you didn't give it the fullest measure. Right? So you could fullest measure something to death and nothing gets done. I'm just devil's advocate.

It's fine. One flower. I want

to have

one more flower.

Unless anyone has any further comments on that, I will add to the chart that will this will be part of our to do list to have the solicitor draft that as a change, whether and all these things, they all come back to us, we could decide after you decide whether you like it or not, we can decide whether or not we recommend the council have it be a separate ballot issue or have it be part of the big combined thing. Thank you very much, Ms. Norman, and thank you, everybody, for considering it again.

For the record, Ms. Norman, I really do like effective, efficient and just administration. Like that's solid.

But he also wanted to clip your fullest measure flower.

Yeah. Wanted to end on a high note.

I'll also recognize the amount of work that went into pulling all of these. That's not the I tried, and it's a lot of work to go into. And I I made it about three, and I actually, gosh. I'll let this know. Thank you.

Okay. Two articles left to review. We have articles three and four. I suggested that we start with four. Since four is the mayor, three is counsel, We had more suggestions on three. I thought let's try and accomplish something, see if we can get through the at least article four and then decide whether or you wanna do article three first. So

let's go to article four.

There are four sections to article four, the mayor. And on our chart, on page three, we have Less than

I thought.

Only four suggestions, to two of the to two of the four sections. So starting with, section 4.1, mister Hall, you wanna start

us off? Section 4.01 term, the mayor shall be elected at the regular municipal election in 2003 and every fourth year thereafter for a term of four years unless a vacancy is to be filled pursuant to Section 4.03, the mayor shall assume office at the first regular council meeting in December following the election. Anyone holding the office of mayor may run for reelection, and that was amended back in 2000.

K. We did not receive suggestions for four point o one, but I would point out that we did receive some suggestions about the terms for council beginning in January instead of December to allow the board of elections to, I think, certify is the term. The Mhmm. And then and, Mr. Bandweg, you might elections in November. And then at some point, there's a certification posted results, the swearing in.

And if there's a conflict of dates, sometimes we don't there's the potential that we could not have people sworn in.

Marshall can I can kind of speak to the process? We've we've actually looked at this, right. So the election is always on the first Tuesday after the first Monday. And those results come in, are unofficial, and by statute, right? It is it happens that the Board of Elections certifies or finalizes the election, you know, later on in the month.

The the issue then becomes how soon thereafter, each elected official receives a certificate of election for this. It's an actual certificate, right? You put it on the wall as your appointment. And if that is not issued and the board gets to it when they get to it, if that's not issued, then the question becomes under the charter, are you seated? And then at the first meeting, in December, if it happens to occur before those certificates are issued, where are we? And that's the I think that's the rub.

Yes. Would you suggest, Mr. Pitcher, that December is a problem issue? Should it be January? Should it be first meeting after which certificates are issued or received?

Vast majority of municipalities, and townships and most political subdivisions in Ohio are all January.

It's the same kind of risk.

Is that

to the fullest measure?

It's not a half measure. Was the

You had to

clap back.

It's always been tied to a meeting of the council. Is it I mean, would it be more proper to have it be starting on January 1? Or and there be people be sworn in, necessarily at a meeting? I know there could be a ceremonial Is having it set as a term beginning at a meeting, is that sufficient?

Well, could it be at the first meeting following certification? So if by some miracle, it showed up on November 29, you can do it in December. But, I mean, ultimately, if the rest of the process is contingent on issuing the certificate, let's say it goes the other way and they don't get the certificate out until March, Well, not gonna wait until January the following year. It's gonna happen in that

I think there's two ways to handle it. Mhmm. Right? You could make it January 1 following the election and 99.9 times that will be fine. You could also remove the requirement of the certificate of election and change that to the certification vote. Ah, okay. Right.

Yeah. Think that's I was

gonna ask the mayor if he recalls when because you ran unopposed last time. Correct? So, theoretically, your election was a very easy one to certify. So did it come in by Thanksgiving? Did it come in by Christmas?

It was any faster.

No. It was not faster,

actually, later than I expected. They do. They do.

Oh, for everyone's election is is all at once. Yeah. When they issue the certificates, I think that's the that's the issue and how long it takes the board and administrative function to issue them.

And and if mister Keigler is telling us that it happens all at once and there's no, okay. Let's get get the low hanging fruit first. Well, then it we're better off just saying the next the next meeting after certification or after January 1 after the certification. I have

one one clarifying question. When they do the certification for mayor, is that grouped in with council as well? Or are there different certification timelines and buckets?

Elections are certified all in the same meeting for the Board of Elections.

So it's not in a separate time line or in the path

of the Good question. And we had two

quick comments, and Marshall, you can certainly comment on the second one. One is whatever we decide, just to keep in mind, it's beneficial to make it the mayor and all the like everybody is on the same time line, we don't have two different time lines But the second is by making it January as opposed or first regular meeting or something rather than upon completion, I'm curious the risk of a council just not appointing people because they haven't got around to it. I think that's maybe why they put the time line in there. But So the

risk of I didn't hear last part.

Not being

held to a date so that you could delay. Like, we just don't want to do this. If it didn't say first regular meeting, if it said following certification, well, March is following certification, April is following certification, the risk of not being specific enough that a council could just not appoint new members and get some stuff done before they did it.

First meeting after certification would

It fix that, would, but in the commentary, like, setting some timeline.

But it's certification It's a state of of election vote or the date a

It's a statutory,

like, requirement, right? I mean, in and I've not heard of a certification carrying over into the

I've never heard of that type of They're required statutorily to do it within That's right. What, fifteen so many days of the election. So

then do we want to change December to January? Or the first regular meeting. Or the first regular meeting.

Or certification or certificate.

Well, this this is already saying first regular meeting in in December in December. So how would we change that? We just would

strike What worries me about saying the first meeting after certification is that the board of elections, you don't know when they're going meet. And the council has a set schedule. And the board of election meets on Tuesday the twelfth, and the council meeting's on twelfth, now later, or they meet in the morning and it's the evening. It just creates kind of, in my mind, a little bit of craziness. I would suggest the first regular council meeting and just change December to January. And that, you know, it's gonna be after certification. Mhmm. Yeah. And then And it does

give you that barrier. The other scheduling conflict is this time of year, people do go on vacation. So if that first meeting was happening at the December and somebody had already planned a trip to Hawaii.

I really don't think there's any value to having Mhmm. Saying January 1 because if you say January 1 and then you could swear someone in, in December after certification but before January 1 so that on the beginning of the date of their term, they've already been sworn in. But there's really nothing a council member or the mayor has to do, well, maybe the mayor, but, before the date of the first meeting because council is not organized. Council acts as a body. And although you can be a council member, there's really nothing you can do formal.

But what happens if, say, an emergency meeting needs to be called before that first one traditionally is held in January? Is there just like some limbo or like we don't have a council member there? No.

Because we have in here that council members serve until their successors are appointed and seated or So

somebody that lost in November could still serve in January if an like emergency meeting was called? Theoretically, yeah.

Right now, people that lose may serve for a meeting, some not usually two, or before their opponent who beat them or whatever. December, January?

Yeah. September, January.

Alright. That is 12.11. Mr.

Pitchford? Yeah. Thank you. I'm going to and it's not a devil's advocate. I have a preference. I just want to call out the policy reason, why I'm sure that December was placed here instead of January, is that the thought is that you get your chosen representatives into office as quickly as possible, right? And technically, at the certification, they have been elected. So they're the only what is the issue we're trying to solve? January is fine. That is how, again, how 99.9% of the offices are filled.

It's playing devil's advocate, and I'm sure there are going to be individuals that say, well, why not keep it December and fix the other issue? Because that is we get our representatives in office.

So the alternative to that would be leave December in and then add the words and after certification of election results by the Board of Elections?

Or just the and then at the first meeting in December and and take the reference out there completely, the the first regular assembly following the municipal election. And that's kind

of how it reads now. And I guess what caught my eye, to your point, is this this has stayed in place since for the last twenty five years. There's no amendments since 2000. So is that why it's not been changed? I wouldn't

say their election. I would say, like, the election date.

Oh. Right. So you would

So can I just inquire what the interest is being served there? We're we're talking about, either four council members. Right? No. This is the mayor. This is the We're gonna we're gonna talk

about it.

I think the idea here this is the concept for both, I think.

So so so if we know what we know what's at risk if it's the president of The United States because we have the lame duck president who serves from the election until January when the new president is sworn in. They have power to issue executive orders and to pardon people. No offense, Jeff. Our mayor only has so much power, and I'm really not afraid of any mayor you abusing that lame duck period between when the election happens and when the new mayor is sworn in presuming there's a change. Similarly, with council, we either have four, and that's that may be the part where we have a real danger if those four are aligned, or three being sworn in, but each of them only have one vote.

And so we're really not saving anything by protecting that or or protecting the citizens from a lame duck council member who may get to vote on sewer infrastructure one more time. I mean

The danger is limited.

I just feel like the danger is limited unless I'm missing something. I mean, I'm I'm

Mhmm. Comments on this.

See, if I can add to that.

I think you I don't think that it's I think that the options are limitless. In the other year, it's limited. No, I would I would take the point that no, they can do a lot of a lot of things. They can only do have one meeting to do it, but they can do a lot of things if they've got the ability to, if they've got five to suspend the rules and to pass. I'm aware of communities where people have been fired, people have been hired, contracts have been terminated, contracts have been entered, and this community and other communities where I represent.

So there is game and ship that can be played, which is why I'm calling it out to you, right? That's the risk. I just want to call out the policy reasons for picking December, really gives them one more meeting, right? It gives your your lame duck council members one meeting to, they think they know the elections, but it's not certified yet, right? I mean, we all, typically know unless there's going to be a recount. Again, I mean, the lawyer footnote. But there's a having a complete rig would be crazy. It is the limit is they only have one chance

to do it. Can you

characterize those two things side by side legally? There's the limit or the opportunity for a single lame session. The risk is five members versus the certification challenge that, to be honest, I felt it's pain of uncertainty, but I really didn't I couldn't quantify the risk associated with not being certification complete when we're appointing people, but quantify those risks against each other. I thought it was an administrative update more than anything to just make sure we didn't have to go through more bureaucracy with that moving the date. One against

the other, if you had

to choose, what are the two risks? Leave it with December or moving it to January. Leave it to December, and you have a certification risk, which the practical effect is what?

Actually, I think what Mr. Pittsford had suggested as an alternative was take out words in December. Don't put anything in its place and add before and it just took

out. The the month.

On the election and and certification and, like, and certification of results thereof. In the next regular meeting. It was it already says so it would say the section would say something like this. The mayor shall assume office at the first regular council meeting following the election and certification of the results thereof. Did you say December? It's December. If they have some challenges and it doesn't happen until January, January. But we're basically saying it's until that certification after the election and after it's done. I I know that the there was value. I did check back to the 2,000 amendments, and there were just some extraneous words removed.

I was thinking maybe that December was put in there back then. It was not. It's always been there. It's as far back as merger. But there's some value to having someone there in December because in December, the budget's adopted for the succeeding year, which the new council has to be part of and gamble for. And then some other things that may be relating to the succeeding year that there may be some value. You can't fit three readings in December, but, the goal is to get them in as soon as they're legally able to be gotten in and not artificially delay it to some date in January. Many other communities do.

Can I

ask something about the so I understand why having somebody come in, in December before they're certified is a weird look maybe for the council members or the mayor? But as a citizen, like, has there been an an instance where somebody was voted in and and never got certified and then they had to be removed? Like, from a citizen's point of view, if I'm voting for somebody in November to your exact point and then you get budgets in December and the person trying to vote out is has wants to I'm not saying they're gonna do this, but cut the police budget by half or something. And it's they get to do that and push that through. And it's

like, well, we just voted you

out so you don't do this exact thing, and now you're gonna do that before you leave. So is it a problem to leave? I know it's weird for them, but as a citizen, does it

I don't think anybody's ever been sworn in and taken office before they've been certified. It might be it might've they might've been sworn in and taken office after certification, but maybe before some challenges to that certification had played out, which you're certified when you're certified. If someone challenges it, you might be, you know, uncertified or decertified at some point in time later, but you are certified from the point you're certified until the point you're decertified. So it's I think there's

I can give an example of how this plays out in a different context. So you have a judge that steps aside and the governor appoints a fill in, right, for the unexpired term. And let's say that the person who was appointed to the unexpired term loses, okay? So another person wins the election. The challenger wins the election. Upon certification, that challenger becomes a judge. They to be sworn in. You can get sworn in before the effective. Right? You are not both of those things have to happen.

You have to be sworn and it has to be effective. You have to have them both. You're officially seated. So that's the rare exception where you will become seated immediately upon, certification. Otherwise, you're going to have these scenarios where it's called out statutorily whenever. Some are May 4 or not May 4, some are February 4. Like judges, they stagger them, so judges have seniority and so on. But that's the only real time that it's effective upon certification is judges, in those filling the unexpired term. We could do that. We could say upon this they take office upon certification.

Done, Right? And then, of course, you have to take your oath of office. And if this before the next meeting, whatever. We have we have right? It could be immediate. Oh. And so whenever the next meeting is, whether it's a special meeting, whether it's not a special meeting, it's it could be effective then. So I said there were two options. That's another option. You can make it upon certification. And if it's

a if it's a judge who acts as an individual, I can understand that. But body. So And I think that there is some value in tying it to a meeting. Just

to continue. I'm I'm not really taking a position on it. I I haven't I haven't

thought You just gave an example.

Haven't thought much about Yep. Like, one would be the best policy. Again, most

are January 1. Mhmm. Related to onboarding, it's a little bit It could it could be a little chaotic if we had an outlier presuming all the certifications come in altogether, but somebody's got held up. You might end up with, you know, having to onboard council people in two separate batches. I Right. Not sure about

Right. I would just, from the council side, say that the onboarding piece is a low maintenance for us. Like it's limited.

Okay. Not to worry not to change the charter about it.

No, okay. Not about Okay.

I have to assume that December was in there to protect the council member who has just voted on the council. I mean, so I'm just Get him in there.

Why don't

we Yeah. Why don't we wanna change it? Just out of curiosity. Yeah. Did because this it was I remember talking about this. So someone did bring this to our attention, but I don't I I feel like it might have been in my interview process. I don't know if it was actually

I think Skyler talked about it.

It was when it was brought up Right. Before.

Think Yeah. Because in my it's it's in my mind. Yeah. I don't see it as a as a proposed change that anyone may have.

Brought up for counsel.

Is that what it was?

Okay. We talked Okay. We'll look

at the note for that maybe.

It was and it was predominantly the concern around being certified like certification being complete.

Making sure they're certified before

they you have to sit.

I mean,

I'm sitting down.

Yeah. It's it's from Am I missing?

From Councilman Byrd. Yeah. Align number nine.

I mean

And eight. And also eight. I knew it was somewhere.

Based on based on your comments, mister Richard, about why December is there kind of now I'm wondering I don't want to go back and recreate the wheel here, but I do like consistency through. So I think consistency for the mayor role and also counsel however we do it, I think that maybe we should be sensitive to maybe a change that we made previous to this, and now we're realizing more context. So I think we did change it to January, and I think that's the comment was when we were reviewing counsel.

We didn't We have to didn't It

was didn't It's been proposed. We've talked about it so much that

I'm thinking, okay, never mind. That's where I

was, too. Yeah. Okay.

All right. So there's several comments about section 3.01. I'm just gonna go look for the dates. Council suggested they be sworn beginners to align with the certification. Third, this is Line nine. As Ms. Norman said, January following election, certification challenges with delays.

Second part of Line 13, there's two paragraphs in line 13, and the second paragraph is about the date.

First regular meeting in January, that was from Sutton. So election

Oh, it's I'm sorry. It's both paragraphs in 13. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't. Mhmm. Mhmm. So

there's two issues. Assigning him on Thursday and mentioning certification. I think it's important to mention certification of election. And I think if you mentioned certification election, and you've already said the first regular council meeting, I would go with mister Pitchford's suggestion, strike the end December and add following certification thereof. Mhmm. Yep.

That sound great? Think that sounds good.

Yes. Okay.

Alright. What's the result?

It would be, to add strike the words in December and after the end of the second sentence

So so

at the first regular meeting in December following the certification of their election?

At the first regular meeting following the election and certification of the results thereof. If it's December, if it's February, if it's whatever, it's whatever. It's it's done.

Bring your certificate and ask for yeah. That's for entry. Right. Mr.

Kagler, I've

got a question for you. As I look back here and above that in 03/2001 was also a comment on term limits. Now I know We'll

come to that when we do that.

But Well, my curiosity was it's under counsel, and the counsel portion is separate. I don't know if there is a separate segment for the mayor.

There are term limits for the mayor. So and there were no suggestions regarding that. That's not to say that if the group thinks there should be, but So

that was part of my suggestion in term limits for all of our positions.

Oh. But I do not line up the mayor. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Yeah. We did have one suggestion regarding term limits for the mayor. And what did you suggest with the

My original suggestion here for all the positions is twelve years.

That was and we've discussed at length for appointed officials. We came up with some consistent language for that. What is the opinion of the commission members for that for elected officials?

Are there current term limits in place for council? No.

There are none.

Not for elected officials. The only term limit for any elected official is the term limit for the council president, which they serve two year terms and they can't serve more than what? Two consecutive. And then go off and come back, but it's not a cumulative.

So just Go ahead, mister. I

just have to think in a small community, it's sometimes it's kind of hard to I think that the counsel has the authority to impose term limits on appointed officials, but we have term limits, which guides council. Citizens have the ability to impose term limits on elected officials, but the charter can impose additional on that. So that's the rub. Not sure it's necessary, but interested to hear everybody else's comments.

So just to play it back, it sounds like if we wanted to impose term limits on elected officials, does that mean it would need to

go out to a vote to the

people of City Of Hudson? Mhmm. Okay.

Yeah. My recollection on this was all the way back to previous council where the decision was made not to give it to the voters to vote on. And there was a lot of interest in the community about, hey, why don't we have term limits? Term limits is a popular concept to discuss. Thus, the proposal is to put it on the ballot to allow the residents to vote if they want term limits or not for all all elected officials. And I note that I I didn't call out the mayor.

Can you bring it up because you got comments from

Probably residents about it as the number one thing I hear about collectively across any resident in Hudson and beyond Hudson is the need for term limits in all government positions. So I've heard it. That's why I thought, hey, and I hear it en masse, give it to the public and see if that's what they really want. Allow them that opportunity. To me for me, as a council person, this was the highest priority thing that I had.

So a mechanic's perspective, if we put something in the if we put something in the charter to say that it needs to get put to a vote by the people, can that then precipitate it getting put on the ballot? Or does it have to go through counsel to get put on the ballot?

I think the mechanics would be if you if this charter recommended term limits, it would give language such as, and forgive me, I am not a lawyer, and all elected officials in Hudson should be limited to no more than twelve years in an elected position. And it would be a ballot initiative. Yes, we adopt that or no, we don't.

Mr. Koehler? Yep. So I I kind of straddle the fence on this, because on one hand, I know that incumbents always have the advantage in any election. You really have to work hard to make people not like you to not win. You have name recognition. You have a track record. For all those those reasons, you've you're good, bad, and somewhere mediocre, it you just have an advantage. And and yet, I am concerned as you are in it. We're not a huge community.

We we do have an incredible talent pool here. But what if our population dwindles? What if we find ourselves with not quite the same talent pool we used to have? How do we do that? So I am not a fan of twelve years and you're permanently out.

I am much more of of fan of sunset requirements. So I would like a shorter term on two terms, and you sunset for a term. And then if we don't have anybody else to elect, well, then we'll consider you again, and maybe we'd like you from last time. The risk, of course, is that you find a person who you wanna support and you put that for your sunset to be the placeholder for you, knowing they're not gonna run again and you come back in four years to run. That's the risk.

But I I am a person who's who's wants to make sure that we take care of what if we need your skills back? We wanna be able to use you. And and it's the same for boards and commissions too. But you should have to take a break so that you aren't a dynasty.

I'll say my my comments, this and any other issue, are not definitive. I and they may be misinterpreted, I think, even by the library. The intent is to have a public discussion. I don't own the rights to how to fix everything, right? I just want we're talking about how we manage our city. So I take absolutely no offense if you went left, right or otherwise. I just want like you got it. It's in your capable hands.

We had a really good discussion about term limits when we got to some of the boards and stuff,

and I learned a lot.

I mean, honestly, I did about kind of how how it's in place and why. I think the spirit of that conversation is what I what I would like to kind of bring to this. You know, when you consider a term limit and the why behind it, even sunsetting or even even if there was an election, you could still come back. Right? I get that.

I think I do support term limits just for the sake of, kind of diversifying the community. You know, I think I think it's maybe antiquated without term limits. It feels antiquated to me, but I would support some sort of term limit language or at least I I really like, actually, I really like the ability to put it in the public's hands to see if they commit to all of and probably would save you a lot of discussion in the future if they chose one way or another. Could just say, this is pick a different battle to go after.

Here's when we talked about for boards and commissions, we talked about the twelve year, no more than three consecutive I can't remember how we did it. But we came up we toiled over that language a little bit. The board's are either five or seven usually. And they serve staggered terms, usually four year terms, and there's usually only one or two members coming up every single year. And I just wanna throw out the scenario.

We have every two years, we have either three council members or four council members up for election. What happens if if we have a twelve year limit and, like, this year, one, two, three, forwards one or, you know, say in year x, awards one, two, three, four. Four different people run, and they don't they're not affiliated with each other. They happen to win, and they they serve. And they serve ably, and they serve well. And after twelve years, they all got to get out of there. They might all most of them might want to get out of there. But you might have one who says, well, you know, I'd like to do it again. But we would be basically saying, we got to have a whole new the majority of our council is going change next year. You lose you lose the more than half.

You lose the potential for institutional Activity. History and memory, and that's that's what worries me. You don't we don't have that with the boards and commissions because the most you could have term out at the same time is one or two on the Planning Commission or on BCBA or something like that. It's set up. And the whole reason we have at large and ward is so that we're staggering the impact.

Certainly, you can have four new ward council members take effect at once or all three new all at large. And that does make it a change. You could have a majority, but you have that by the choice of the voters if they do it. You don't have it forced by the charter. And that's I kinda worry about unintended consequences. That's all.

Our most recent election essentially turned over three at large people all at the same time. Ms. Kawalski was just in her position for a short time before. So we've experienced it. I think there's institutional knowledge in the city staff in that we rely on the city manager and their staff for a lot of that no matter who we elect.

Oh, this was the other thing. Going back to the early two thousands and even back before merger, I I remember they used to have to before merger, it was every two years, there were four council members up for election and, you know, there were different council members that serve. The village had a hard time getting people to run for council. And invariably, after merger, there'd be a couple of vacancies and they'd appoint. Even after merger, certainly, there was heightened political interest after merger, and there's been heightened political interest at various times since and now.

But there were times in the early two thousands where there were a couple elections where nobody ran for Ward 3 or nobody ran for Ward 4. And counsel was having to go back to, you know, Joe Smith who served before and said, hey. We don't have anybody. Could would you be able to do this for and, you know, somebody stepped back in to to help and serve because nobody else was interested. And to have that not be able to we're not always gonna have lots of people interested. And my worry is how does how does this kind of a rule work when there's not a lot of interest in government and happens every so often?

Can you change the charter again? We've had no shortage of candidates in recent years.

When it comes to the institutional knowledge, and like you just referenced, three at a time or whatever it could potentially be, is there anything that prevents somebody who has long tenure on counsel from coming back for a special assignment or something that we could say, hey, come back. You're not in the official position anymore, but we need some help on something that's a legacy item. I think what I find

is, as an individual council person, there's stuff I don't know. Like, I've been here four years. I've lived here twelve, thirteen years. Time goes by, if I'm wrong on that. I often have to go back into the community and ask people questions. So it the community is still a wealth of knowledge, staff, wealth of knowledge. So I go to a lot of different places to learn about something, but that that's part of being a council person. Like, I'm never even know at all, so I try to bring it together. But to your question too, I mean, I've said twelve years. Miss Norman has suggested a different model.

I think it's to balance all these risks, the risk of incumbency. I mean, the way that I described this before I got to the twelve years is Hudson has a wealth of skill and knowledge in our residents. Whether they choose to serve or not, there could be more, you know, impetus. When more residents are involved in the local government, more residents are aware of the local government workings, and there is more government action aligned to the interests of the residents. This elevates the quality of government, the quality of life in the community.

I think the things that I've found over time is as more people push away local government, there's a smaller elite group that takes over, makes the decisions and not really under the same level of scrutiny that they should be in a community. So by forcing the community a little, it's not forcing them in, but there's a tension that says, hey, we're going to need more people to be involved. You live here. Be a part of managing it. And because then there's more discussion about who's going to run, who's going to like the word spreads more.

That's been my experience in government, and not just here, but, you know, in my military professional background with other governments, other communities, the dangers of consolidation of power, of power as a benefit. The more people involved, I find you're better off. But Mr. Kegler brings up a very good point in that if you have a shortfall in talent or interest, that's why I say there's a risk, but you also have charter review. And if all of a sudden you find you, you know, this is bad, go back to charter review. You know? We have it one way now. We're proposing a change.

Well, it sounds like if in order to have rather than having it be in 3.01 or 4.01, it sounds like it would be some sort of like a separate section and have it be separately voted on. So the whole question would be if it were I mean, is everyone open to Yes.

Yeah. Okay.

The issues we were talking about would be, I heard twelve years. I heard cool off period in between two terms. Who said that? Did you say that?

Mine was two terms with the sunset. Two terms.

So eight, twelve years. Off, So years.

You'd be eligible again.

Not accumulative. Not accumulative. And then there would also, since it's a new section to the charter and we have current elected officials, we have to have a provision in there to say effective beginning, like when does the clock start for have to start on the date that it's adopted, not club. I don't know if you be retroactive, right? It could be, but it may be too complicated to clock. I agree.

Yes. Yeah. All

right. Well

Can I Mr? Taylor, can

I ask you

probably If a silly we liked the option of doing something, making a change, perhaps it's this the cool after the sunset, Perhaps it's a straight, twelve years and and that's it? Do you can you put both on the ballot and then people can vote for one or the other? Or is I'm just I'm it's just a curiosity.

I like that because it's what we're give right. I'd say at minimum, there's three choices. One is twelve, one is eight on, four off, and the other one is nothing. Right.

Well, you don't need to put nothing on because nothing's what it is.

Nothing would change.

And if you have if you put the two competing charter amendments on, Mr. Pitchford's already there are two competing, the one that gets more votes.

Okay. Wouldn't you wanna leave wouldn't you wanna

What if what if you're giving the option to not

To not change.

Yeah. Mhmm.

I think I think that's Like, I don't like either of these.

I don't want I don't want any terms. I I'd like I'd like to actually

have terms.

No term limits. Yeah. Right. Okay. No changes. Yeah.

So you're thinking one, two, three options.

Slit your vote. Are you ready?

Yeah. Let's put a fourth option. No.

It has to be three separate issues. And 30. And that's that's where you end up Separate issues. It's where you end up It

can't be it can't be serious.

It can't be pick one of these.

Multiple choice. Whatever

the thing is.

I've never written about That

wasn't true. Could be. All

it would be is issues like issues one, two, three would be three different drafts of this one section of the charter.

Okay.

And it's you you gotta vote yes and no in all three. You might you might like two and three. Yeah. Vote yes on two of them and no on three. Sure. You might like one and not the other two, and you might not like any of them and say, why are we putting that in? Yeah. So just

this is this is for mayor and council. It would

be a it's gonna have to be a Okay. Yeah.

All elected. Mister

Kegler? Yep. On the question of the sunset of four years, if I'm a if I'm a ward councilman and I run for eight, can I sit out two years and run for at large when it comes up because they're staggered?

I I wouldn't put a limitation on you.

No. Mean, the two or the four, is that should it be two? I have to sit out two and then I can run for at large?

I I would choose not to address that because, frankly, running at large is very hard. I will never run at large ever again because 24,000 people is a lot of people. They don't all vote, but it's a lot of people. If I would ever run again, it would only be in my ward because it's a nice small little group of people. And and I I don't have a problem with that. I if you are someone who can actually win the hearts of this entire city, go for it.

Or even vice versa if I'm at large. I got eight and I wanna and I sit out for two. All I'm saying is is that since they're staggered four years is if they're running for the ward or at large again, whereas they could could they I'm asking this group. Right. Can they run for the Yes.

So so what you're asking is, should we give a benefit to a person who wants to jump ship from at large to ward or vice versa, or should we penalize them? Because they either can all can run again in two years or they can't run again for six years.

I I think if we're talking about elected of elected service to the city, we really have three classes. We have board at large and the mayor. Mhmm. And if we just say, elected officials shall serve no of of the city, just some general term, shall serve, no longer no more than twelve years period, whatever, service to the kind of like we said on the for the boards and commissions, we said on this board Mhmm. Commission. Right? This would be more of a general as a as a service to the of service to the city. Just just a thought. And that way because somebody might have a chairs. Council member who wants to run for mayor, a mayor who wants to run for council or something like that.

And that's happened before. Yeah. That's happened.

Three different options. Talked about a and we're talking about a year limit, twelve years. Just a twelve year total service,

right, with the same catch all provision we have for the appointees if you get appointed and it's

not General going to term. Yeah. Yeah. Then the second option second option was at eight consecutive years with a

Sunset. Two,

two. And I'm going to argue for elected, right? So you take out the appointment, so it's two terms. Two elected terms instead of years. And then my question is, is the consensus a four year sit out or a two year sit out or just a different office? So you go from ward and you go directly to at large, directly to mayor or directly back to, right? What's the preference? You want a complete cool off two years, four years? Or do you want to just go to a different seat? Like in the state house, you go from the state as a state rep to the state senate, back to the state rep, back to the state senate, right? And they stay in office. They're just in a different chamber. What's your preference?

Where we chase this? Well, I

wonder if the cool off period to your point, I have never run for office, okay? But putting myself in your shoes, if I had a cool off period, it would be almost like reinventing yourself to try to come back, which would be pretty challenging. So you're putting you're putting that challenge on Because

they lose the benefits of incumbency. Yeah.

Yes. Which is really what my point on term limits is, is to just break the incumbency because then you'd I mean, you might have some goodwill you're bringing along with you, but you do have to kind of come out anew.

I see. Okay. Alright. That makes sense. I think

I'll throw out, I think, the the two cooling off would be that'll be the next municipal election. Because if said it if someone said, well, I would like to I'm doing my eight years on award as award counsel, I want to run for at large counsel. Well, they wouldn't have to wait four years. They'd have to wait six years because there'd be a award an at large election two years later and or six years later. So I just think two would be simple. That's great. Cool. Cool. So eight with a two, and then the third would be a openly saying no limit. So let's see if we

can address

something like that and figure out a section number or place for

it, which we don't know yet.

Did we

fully slip the hair on because we're in that large are two different roles? Did we

split the hair on that? When you go to the two year break

On the sunset one, you can

switch with the two year break. Okay.

You'd have to wait four years to run for the same position you're in right now, or you'd have to wait two years to run So I never two years every the staggered

Or wait two years to run for mayor.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mhmm.

We're doing So we're four years for the same position, two years for a different position?

It's in the language, it's two years for simplicity, but the mechanics are it would be four years, like, because there's no election for your position except four years.

Right, right. Yes. It's default. Yes.

All right. So there's a vacancy.

Mr. Kacz.

I just want to

So kill this horse let's

say I am elected to a ward and the mayoral election is

during my term At the same time. Ward and mayor, same time, okay? I never mind that.

There's nothing that prevents

Thank you for humoring me.

There's nothing that prevents today and a ward council member from running for At Large Or the next time any council member from running for mayor, whether or not they're done with their term right into the next seat.

What was option number three? There shall be no term limits? Nothing.

No change. Yeah. It's functionally no change. It's basically openly saying what the current situation is Right. What people don't necessarily know about.

Yeah. We can do that two ways, but I don't mean to belabor the point. You can create a clause that says what the status quo is. I think that might be easier for for, the general, public to understand. Let's just, say for a moment we don't have option three. That means option one or two, you still have option number three if both of those don't secure majority vote. Got it. But as you can vote no and no

And then it still reverts. Having the

status quo.

Yeah. That

makes sense.

So by putting option number three in, you are making it clear if they all three fail, then we're still at the status quo. So there's

two ways status quo could continue.

Correct. And my only point is if you put three out there, you don't necessarily need it, but I do understand the logic for saying it, is clarity for the voter because if they don't they go in there

They're thinking they're pushing one

or the other. Yeah.

Well, you know, no, you could go no on both of them and that's a voter education question. So I understand it. I just wanted to point out the the nuance that if they both fail, they both fail.

Right. They both pass?

If they both pass, then you go with the They can all pass.

If the vote gets the most votes What do mean by

Oh, the highest amount of percentage wise.

The vote counts.

Whichever if they both are over a majority of those Got that vote it. The highest vote total was.

Okay. So what if one is, like so because sometimes people don't fill in a bubble. Right? If they don't understand the amendment, they might just skip the whole thing together. So what if, like, a has they have more votes, but the percentage is lower. So they only got like 55% and auction B has less votes, but it had passed with 70%. Which one wins?

I will answer what I believe to be the answer, preserving the right to confirm my research, but it's the highest vote total. Even if one wins by 70% to 30%, the other one has a higher people only vote on issue number one. Right. Because they just fall off. They just they only answer issue one and issue two and issue three. Right? Because it's not a they will be issue one, issue two, issues three. There'll be three separate questions. They're not all one question.

Right.

So if you vote on issue one and one and not two or three, so it's still highest vote. So it'll it the order will matter. Right?

Mhmm.

If I mean, yes, maybe maybe not, but, it could if you're worried about, ballot drop off.

Well, and the concern would be if they were not together. Because if they're in sequence, it doesn't really matter it doesn't really matter if they're together. But if you put one off by itself and I don't know how oh, they wouldn't do that because they'll have numbers. They'll be Maybe numbers. Issue number. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Issue 16 depending on

the right? Have sixteen, seventeen or

whatever. Okay.

No. This Board of Elections figures

out right amount of articles of how it appears once we see that.

So you want all three, though? Yes, please. Okay. Yeah. All

right. See why I picked article four instead article three? Section 4.2. Mayor Powers. Okay.

Section 4.02 powers. When authorized by counsel, the mayor shall serve as judge and shall have all the judicial powers granted generally by the laws of Ohio to mayors of municipalities. The mayor shall preside at the organizational meeting and all subsequent regular and special meetings of the council at which legislative action may be taken but shall have no vote therein. The mayor shall have the right to introduce ordinances, resolutions, and motions, and the right to participate in and receive information on all matters coming before the council. The mayor shall timely inform the council of substantive matters that, the mayor participates in within the mayor's official capacity.

The mayor shall be the official and ceremonial head of the municipal government and shall be recognized as such by the governor for military purposes and by the courts for purpose of serving civil processes. It was amended in year 02/2005, 2010, and 2015.

And we had three different suggested changes to Section 4.2. These are lines 26, 27, and 28 on Page three of our chart. Two of the suggested changes were from mayor Anzavino, and the third was from council member Byrd. Going backwards, mister Byrd's council member Byrd's suggestions a suggestion related to mayor's duties, and he suggested adding language regarding specific, things that the mayor should be doing to be a champion for the city. And it's the language that speaks to those responsibilities would be helpful in the charter.

The second, proposed change on line 27 was from the mayor. He suggested removing the word ceremonial, and then the, third change was line twenty six six just above that. That one includes, it's similar to, council member Byrd's suggestion, but it and it included some suggestions regarding role expectations and things that the, the mayor What is your pleasure regarding, this and the suggestions that we have? I'll start. Think that, regarding the middle suggestion regarding ceremonial, that's something that's been discussed a lot, in at past charter review commissions.

It wasn't touched as part of that. Two mayors ago, I think Mayor Curran used to refer to it a lot when he was mayor. And

That's three. Mr. Capo, that's three mayors.

Three mayors, though.

Well, that's true.

Okay. Thank you. A few mayors ago, Mayor Kernan There

you go.

Would refer to it. And, it became of more, importance and relevance when we had states of emergency during COVID. Mayor had to sign certain things because he was the official, official head. So I and to me, the ceremonial there is to distinguish the mayor from the manager who is the administrative head, and I think it's an important word to retain. And then my only other comment would be regarding the additional relevant duties.

I think one of the one of the of the great benefits that our mayor's position has is the wealth of different skills and, interests and abilities that it brings with every different person who occupies that office. Some of them are great at meetings. Some of them are great at, speeches. Some of them are great at, representing the the community to the state. Some are really good at going and being a champion locally.

I think they're all valuable. And, I'm a I'm a fifth. Five years ago, my my opinion was, I went into the Charter Review Commission thinking, do we really need a mayor? And that response to my reaction to things that may have been going on at the time. And and I think that it's important not to focus on the person.

I learned that it's more important to focus not on the person, but on the actual position. And I I find that the minimal nature of what's required, the charter says what's required. I don't oppose any of the things that are proposed, but I wouldn't want to we've had mayors of all different ages and all different some who work full time, some who've been retired. And, I don't wanna discourage anybody from doing things because we have a laundry list of things that they have to do. And I also don't wanna discourage someone from doing a bunch of things that they can't do because they're blessed with the abilities to be able to do it. So making no changes, but I'll be open to anything anybody might suggest. Mr.

Chair, am I allowed to add comment? Would that be Commissioner discussion first.

And if we'll entertain it if we get to that after commissioner discussion, absolutely.

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

Just by way of observation, I sort of feel like councilman Byrd's suggestion is reflective of the first suggestion by mayor Ansovino. So I would I would sort of merge merge those conceptually, at least. I am inclined to agree with the chairman related to removal of the word ceremonial. This word took on more significance at some times than others, and that will be all I say about it. But, that word has had the effect of being able to rein in, particularly zealous mayors as well as remind good mayors that there is a decorum that comes along with this office ceremonial because there are no such things as ceremonial councilmen.

They have work to do. The mayor has work to do too. But as a head of state, city head of city, without the administrative responsibilities of the city manager, I I would keep ceremonial. That's that's my 2¢ on that. I was prepared because I was I really like the language in mayor Anzavino's suggestion, but mister Kegler's comments about it.

And as I look back at the powers that are enumerated in four point o two, they're all kind of in there, but just not in that level of detail. And that allows each individual mayor to bring, this is my opinion, to bring their strengths to that office. If you're not a person who can go out and meet and greet and I see the mayor's posts about new businesses that are here, and he does a great job with that. I would love every mayor to be able to do that, but I can't ask someone who is afraid to go meet new people to just go do that. Maybe they love parliamentary procedure, and that's what they wanna do.

It's hard to imagine being in politics if you didn't wanna meet people. But I'm just trying to account for the differences in personalities that that different candidates bring to different jobs. So so I I was really I I could still go either way, but I just as I reflect on four point o two, I just sort of feel like we already encapsulated it.

We and we as a commission have kind of stayed away from specifics all through this. Right? Like, as I read these, I think the spirit of it is the in the second paragraph, you could add the mayor shall act in the best interest of the community and have the right to introduce just something that just says, however you do it and whatever your skill set is, we expect that to shine. Worry that really, my fear is that if you do put any of specifics in there, they can be held accountable to those, inappropriately. And and then all of a sudden, it becomes a problem. So that that's kind of where I I lean away from those, but just my piece.

I think it sounds pretty good the way it is. I don't think I would change anything.

Yes. I agree. I think the more specific the expectations come that are defined, the easier potentially somebody could start, nope. They don't have that. They don't have that. They don't have that. They don't have that. Where, I mean, the spirit of this is, hey, whatever person is elected, we want to bring we want them to bring their a game and whatever their a game is, whether it's baseball or chess. Right? We want them to be the best that they can be for the community and service of the community.

So my concern is while I understand that it's a positive intent to help define the expectations, my concern is that it would ultimately be used as they would create more risk and potentially open up a whole another can of worms and it becomes very, very subjective of somebody is good at that or somebody is bad at that. I think as is written, less is more, and that would be my recommendation.

Right. Because if there's specifics written that they don't accomplish, then people could be like, we could vote them out or try and censure them or get rid of them because he or she is not hitting x, y, and z versus

Outside of the direct votes of the people. Right? Like, Yeah.

They could even become prerequisites for becoming the mayor. If you knew the verbiage ahead of time, you could say, well, you're not good at nonprofits whatever it may be. And then all of a sudden, got qualified because

of what the

charter says.

Like, because you want

some ice cream shops when you Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. In addition, not just for becoming, but if you put things in there that are expectations and, frankly, duties, then for that matter, is it cause for removal cause for recall if someone doesn't go to a pass or do this or do that? That's any other commissioner comments? Mr. Bamway? Just going to

say, line one, all the way back. It's under Article II, but half of it is about prescribing detailed responsibilities in which effectively I said the same thing you said, Mr. Kagler. That was line two. Line one, right under the preamble under Article two. It was a combined comment about merit councilmanager form of government and then prescribing of specific duties.

I did have one question, if I may. I agree with one of my other commission members have said about the role. I just had a question about the very first sentence when it says self serve as judge and shall have all the judicial powers. That in case we ever wanted to have a mayor's court again knowing that the mayor is not actually a judge, but

We did have

I know we did at one point. Is that in here in case we ever wanted to bring it back? Or what is he a judge of right now according to that first sentence?

You're out of order. That's what I believe it is for.

Or running meeting or for the

Mayor's court.

But I'd have to look into that. I've never actually looked into the

Probably would do that. I

will share your initial

And Mr. Keigler, can you remind us of the history? We had a Mayor's Court until the Stowe Municipal Court became the venue in which we sent our traffic tickets, basically.

I don't know if it was when it was Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court or after it moved to Stowe, at some point in time after merger, there were because I remember I got a speeding ticket. I had to go to Barlow Community Center for it. It wasn't the mayor. It was a what do call it? Registration? Registration.

Appointed by the mayor.

Yeah. And so that's but it was handled locally. And that was for a few years after merger. And I think it was done formal it's done a lot of times, mayor's court, in really small communities. And then after merger, it's a larger community. And the mayor's court was really busy for a while. They decided, well, maybe we don't wanna do this. And they I don't know if that was done by councilmatic action or if it was something formal. So we've heard from the commissioners. We have heard from, mister Panayak.

Thanks for pointing out that at the beginning. And, mister mayor, did you I I kinda hesitate because we did receive your suggestions. If

I may, I would like to. Yes. On the suggestion to remove the word ceremonial, there are other forms of government similar to Hudson where they state that as nonadministrative, which in my opinion, that is the intent of that word. It is that we have a city manager who runs the operations. So the mayor is not administrative because nobody in the administration staff reports to the mayor.

So non administrative is the more appropriate term in my opinion, and that is what other forms of government similar to Hudson state for their mayor. And the reason why additional reason why I believe the word ceremonial should be considered to be removed is in my role and how I have approached it. And I appreciate the council's comments on on everything that you stated to date. But I have seen the good that the role of mayor in Hudson can do from grade school children all the way to our senior citizens. And at some point in time, I will not be in this role.

And I would think the city of Hudson would be missing the opportunity to have somebody come in and try to add value in every aspect that they can. And that's why I have suggested the word guidelines and expectations as opposed to you must do this or this is your requirement. I understand that might set an expectation, but I think those expectations have been shown to be extremely good for the community over my three years in this role. And I think the city and the residents are missing the opportunity to expect more from a mayor as the key public relations manager for the city. Everything that, I put in there is what I do.

And again, I see the responses and how the residents respond to me when I'm out doing all those things. Why would we not want some general expectations of a future mayor to do things like that? Because the way the charter is stated right now, the only thing the mayor has to do, sign some documents and chair two meetings a month. Doesn't even have to show up at a workshop. If a mayor chose to do nothing else, he could just do that and meet the requirements of the charter as it stands today.