Personnel Advisory & Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. It's 07:03PM. It is Wednesday, 05/14/2025. This is a an extra scheduled meeting of the City of Hudson Charter Review Commission, And I will since I've called the meeting to order, I will start with a roll call. Mister Hall? Here. Miss Griffith?

Here.

Mister Hoover? Here. Miss McCoy?

Here.

Mister Ryan? Here. Miss Spitaleri? Here. Mister Trainor? Here. And, miss Norman is not here, but I understand that she may be here shortly. Mister Pitchford is here, and we may be also having our, council liaison, mister Bamweg. And Mr. Sheridan, city manager. Item three on the aj we do have a quorum, by the way. Item three on the agenda is approval of minutes. I'd like to thank Aparna for preparing these so quickly because I didn't even get her my comments or be able to review anything until Friday. So she was able to turn it around really quickly and get it out by the end of the day. So I was not expecting that. I will entertain a motion to approve.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Ms. Griffith moves. Second. Mr. Ryan seconds. Roll call on that. Mr. Hall? Aye. Mr. Treynor? Aye. Ms. Griffith? Aye. Ms. McCoy? Yes. Ms. Villarney? Aye. Mr. Hoover? Aye. Mr. Ryan? Aye. And Mr. Kegler? Aye. That's eight votes in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. Item four is, correspondence account, commissioner comments. Just a refresher where we are, we have reviewed 14 and a half articles out of 16 plus the preamble.

We reviewed articles one and two, half of, article four, and all of articles five through 16. All we have left is the remaining half of article four and all of article three. And then we have some remaining separate issues that have been presented to us, but we've been holding off until we get through with all the rudimentary stuff. Those four issues include whether or not certain boards and commissions should be merged, whether or not the Military Veterans Commission should be added to the charter, whether or not the city charter should include some version of ranked choice, voting or some variation thereof, for the elected officials in the city, the mayor, the council board members, and the council at large members, some all or none. And then lastly, comments regarding, I'll paraphrase it as accountability and governance of entities that, receive taxpayer, funding.

And I'll note at 07:06 that, miss Norman is here, and we will we have a full commission. Sorry. That's okay.

Just start measure. It's okay.

Just started. We've summed up all the changes that we have talked about and preliminarily requested drafts of at the last meeting or as as of the last meeting. There are several, but they're, by and large, extremely minor. They include the preamble, which we discussed at the last meeting with some minor word changes to the version that was proposed by, miss Norman. Changing of a few words in section four point o one, we spent a lot of time discussing that in the mayor section at the last meeting regarding, when the mayor would take office after the election, and that was kind of a kill two birds with one stone discussion because presumably we will also apply what we discussed to the council section when we get to article three.

We talked about earlier about article five. That's a one word change. In article six, we have two changes, adding in six six point o three, language regarding an acting finance director in the absence of the finance director, and in sections, six point o four, revising the city's requirements for notice, for a variety of purposes. Then there are seven different sections of the charter where we talked about board and commission term language. That's one, language change seven times in seven different locations.

Those sections are six point o or sorry, eight point o four, eight point o six, eight point o seven, nine point o one, nine point o four, nine point o six, and eleven point one. And that's for the seven different, charter created boards except, for this the Charter Review Commission. And then lastly, three changes, all one word each in sections 12 o one, twelve point o two, and twelve point o three. Our next meeting is scheduled for three weeks from tonight, which is on June 4, and then we have two additional meetings, scheduled after that depending on how things go at the, meeting on June 4. Those would be on June 18 and June 25, all in advance of our end of the month in June deadline.

I don't believe we received any additional well, maybe we did. No. There were just three documents that were sent out, the agenda, the minutes, and the updated chart. The the chart itself, what does incorporate discussions or comments, everything that we talked about at last week's meeting. And, this was printed out on Friday for tonight Friday the ninth for tonight's meeting. So if you're looking, look for the revised date or exported date of May 9 in the upper left or lower left hand corner.

It was actually May 14.

Well, for the fourteenth meeting. She I'm saying it's revised on the ninth for the fourteenth meeting. She's got that. She kinda puts a revised date at the top on page one, and then on the bottom of every single page, she puts an export date of when she actually prints it, I guess.

Alright.

Not just not on our copies. Post on your copies? No.

No. Miss Norris is.

Oh, you know what?

Maybe it's not on the hard copy you received tonight. It's on the email one.

Oh. This is from the email.

That's exactly right. Yeah.

Didn't I didn't realize that.

It's okay.

On the very top, it says 05/1425 CRC meeting.

And that's her date for Okay. Knows that.

We know

this is. So we know

it's for tomorrow. Thank you for pointing that out. I wasn't aware that they look different.

Would wouldn't have known what you were

in my email.

And just like your little numbers on the side margins.

They're not

there either when she prints them out. So I had to go back. Oh, yeah. You're Sorry. I'm to figure it all out to make sure I was on

the right page. Numbers. I don't see Yeah. Like, when you say line 16

Oh, my. I to let you know it's the ninth meeting.

I've been haven't been

intentionally trying to prove you all. You

don't see us like this as you want.

I've I've always printed mine out because I I can't just come and like use I could work at a meet. I can't do that. So I have to have my printed out in advance. And so who knew?

Okay. Alright.

That was just me.

Well, I will try and be a little less assuming. Alright. Does anyone else have any any other commissioners have any comments, for the good of the order? Hearing none, Mr. Pitchford, did you have anything?

I did not.

Okay. Move to Item five, public comments. We have two opportunities on the agenda for public comments. There are none at this time. We'll ask you again towards the end in case someone comes in. No scheduled presentations under item six move right into our our item seven, which

is review of charter articles.

And item seven a, we stopped last week on we finished, I believe, with section four point o two and concluded there would be no change. And then we we will start tonight with, section four point o three. Mister Ryan, would

you like to start us with that one?

Section four point o three, vacancy. The office of the mayor shall be deemed vacant in the event of the resignation, death, removal from office, disqualification, or inability to perform or not having performed the duties of the office of mayor for a period of sixty days or as may be otherwise provided by this charter. In the event of a vacancy, the president of council pursuant to section three dot zero three shall fill the office of mayor while retaining all the powers and responsibilities of president of council for a period not to exceed sixty days from the date the vacancy occurs, during which time the council shall fill the office of mayor temporarily by appointment by a vote of a majority of members of the council. Thereafter, the vote, the voters shall elect a mayor at the next general election for the remainder of the term, or if that election occurs within ninety days after the vacancy occurs, than the second next general election. As the term, quote, unquote, general election is used in this section 4.03, it shall mean either a municipal regular general election in an odd numbered year or a state regular general election in an even numbered year.

The term of the person chosen at such election to succeed such appointee for an unexpired term shall begin at the first regular council meeting after the county board of elections certification of the vote following the election and shall continue for the remainder of such unexpired term. Amended 11/07/2000, 11/02/2010, 11/03/2020.

You. And on our chart on page three, the seventh row down from the top

Known as line 30.

More line 30. We had one suggestion in this section, and this was from councilwoman Kowalski. She said, this article outlines only term powers of vacancy and absence. In section four point o three vacancy, it states the office of mayor shall be deemed vacant in the event of the resignation, death, removal of office, disqualification, inability to perform or not having performed the duties of the office of mayor. However and this that's end quote.

How and this is the comment. However, despite the reference to removal of the mayor, unlike article three, the council article three, the council, which outlines a process for removal of a council member, section 3.13, there is no process for removal of, discipline of, or center of a mayor. Charter Charter Commission should evaluate and put into place a process for these measures. So my first question for mister Hitchford was there was it's actually a separate section for removal under under Article three for counsel completely and very detailed, but nothing for, or for for the mayor. So as I recall the last time this was discussed, since it's not outlined in the charter, people who were considering this at at a certain time that will go unmentioned, were directed to just go by the statute and pursue, what would it be, a recall or actual removal process through statute?

Or

That is my recommendation as well. As I was thinking about that, there is a recall process that's set forth in the revised code. Here if that was process were to be filled. The I guess the other question was whether or not there was any plan for discipline or other issue. I'm not necessarily recommending that, because the those those city council are stepping apart from the mayor, but, you know, we can certainly talk about how

we wanna go about it. Oh, I apologize. In section 12 o three of the charter, there is a provision, a general provision regarding recall of any elected officers. That would apply to council or, any council member or the mayor. What would be the difference, Mr. Pitchford, between recall and just removal under the statutory provisions of the revised code? Would that just be what a recall is?

Yeah. Sections I was referring to a recall, provision. Yep. I would have to go back and look to see what there if there were any further provisions.

Okay. So thinking ahead, is there then when we talk about Article III later for removal of council members, that's a process for council members to remove each other or remove fellow members.

And as I was looking at that section, right, 13 Yep. One one That opens with counsel shall be the judge of the qualifications of its own members. Well, the mayor isn't technically a mayor a member of the legislative authority. That's why I'm saying the language here doesn't necessarily apply. And I wouldn't necessarily be recommending. I'm not saying we can't create a process, perhaps a vote or that's really what you have in the recall section.

So absent any specific mention, we do have a provision for removal by recall under, wherever that was, twelve oh One zero three.

12 O three. Yeah.

Discussed and we're pretty much satisfied with except for, like, one word. Then going back up right

the under the back down depending on where you're looking right now. Right. The vacancy issue, right, if he's not doing his job for sixty days Mhmm. Is the other I guess that's kind of self executing there.

So counsel would have the ability under the four four point o three to essentially declare the mayor that the mayor has not been fulfilling his to declare it vacant?

I think and that's that's kind of the the the gray area, in in this sense, right, because it doesn't say that. But, again, as I was calling out before, right, we're not we're I'm not suggesting that the council will be given the authority to, remove, but you might clarify here that the council can review and determine whether or not, or will be the judge of whether or not the mayor has performed his duties because because otherwise it's silent on that. It's intuitive that it would be counsel, but it's not you know, the argument would go, whether or not it happened as a matter of law and then who would be, you know, And we have to sue the city to declare the the office vacant because the mayor is not doing has not been doing his job for sixty days.

Or you can have it

or even the mayor or council would simply pass a vote

resolution. It doesn't well, I don't I don't see where it says if the mayor's the only thing I see about sixty day oh, there you go. I missed the first.

Right. He's making it if the mayor has not performed the duties of the office of mayor for a period of sixty days.

So we it maybe could be in the second paragraph to add a sentence. The counsel shall be the judge of the qualifications of the mayor as defined in the foregoing or in the above paragraph. Is that is that the intent of Yeah. What you're

I thought we already had that.

I would probably break that first sentence, into two sentences. Mhmm. And you could make it, the office of the mayor shall be deemed vacant in the event of a resignation, death, removal from office, disqualification, inability to perform, or as other may be provided by this charter.

As determined by the council.

And then further, right, the mayor, the office of the mayor shall be deemed vacant in the event that all member or by majority members of council, it is determined that the mayor has not performed his duties for a period of sixty days. Just want to make that you understand what I'm saying.

And this is somewhat I mean, we're working with a charter unit. We've it's had various permutations and changes in amendments. So less cobbled together probably than the land development code, but still to some degree cobbled together. And I'm I'm aware from previous research that the National Civic League puts out a model city charter just for comparison's sake only. They list under city council those offices as well as the mayor and have a chapter on the qualifications, who the judge of the qualifications is, and then there's a chapter on vacancies, forfeiture of office, and how to fill vacancies.

So if if I was doing an ideal rewrite of this, we would describe counsel in one chapter. We'd describe the mayor, and we'd have a completely separate section that talked about malfeasance, misfeasance, absence from office, and and the processes by which those choices got made. And I think the the gist of councilwoman Pawlowski's point is, you know, we we, had a chapter in time where there was some concern about the conduct of the mayor, and the that's when we realized we had no real provision to follow except to go through a rather severe process, which recall is. Recall is not easily done, and then if you succeed, it's the whole thing. I mean, it's a it's a big deal.

And why is there no middle ground in that regard? Which I think is a fair point to say considering that counsel has a middle ground. There's censure. There's there's a suspension too. Right? Did we go over that? And then and then removal would be a whole another thing.

Well, not knowing any specific language, we let's open it up and say you've heard mister Ryan read the section the way it is. What is your observation of how things are? Are you satisfied the way it is? Would you be open to a cleanup cleanup on Aisle 4 version of to see if we could make the in as concise as possible wording, even if it's a wholesale replacement, something that's Displeasure of everyone. I'm

looking at a number of different areas in this charter that describe, I think, what we're talking about. I would even add 10 o one.

That, I think, is appointees.

Appointees. And then and then you still get into where were we at with the sorry. That's my fault. The the recall process, the only thing I saw in there, it may just be one word in that other section. I'm sorry. I lost it. I was reading something else. You can come to back. Come to me.

Mister Hall, if I may, while you're looking, I'm noticing in the council section, section three, there's a specific I think there's a vacancy section and a removal. While in the mayor, there's just a vacancy and an absence. Do we need a specific removal?

That's what was talking about a little

bit earlier.

Yeah. And I'm as we're sitting here, everyone's talking. I'm rereading the first paragraph in removal. And as I closely stated that, that potential rewrite of that first paragraph under the other section, I would argue that the first paragraph here in three thirteen might be a better way, probably concise it. But I would start it perhaps with the third sentence, right?

The counsel may expel or remove the mayor for gross setup by to what Mrs. Norman was talking about. I continue through that. We would add instead of it says absence without excuse for three consecutive meetings, we would change that to the 60 so it's consistent with what we currently have. And if we wanted to, build in the due process, piece here, that's in the second paragraph, we could do that as

Mr. Pittsford, would you be able to clarify for us the difference between expulsion and removal in terms, let's think in terms of the mayor. I mean

Expulsion, I think, is for a defining period of time where removal is that's the way I I think

that would be suspension. Suspension?

I'm thinking of, like, Sewell. If you misbehave a little, you get suspended. If you misbehave a lot a lot, you get expelled. Is removed. Is removed. And that's why I asked the question because I'm still thinking we have some wordsmithing to do. I I like your idea. Mhmm. That would definitely, you know, to add four point o five would definitely give us but, again, to a point that it got raised, there is no middle ground. There's no censure available to the mayor.

I mean, if this is a power we want to codify for future clarifications and so there won't be issue and and people could say to the council, we want you to censure the mayor because he's bad. Yeah. They don't have that mechanism available to them.

Well, it's

I'm not gonna say we need it. I'm just gonna say if we're gonna fix it, let's fix it. Yeah.

Well so question. It doesn't is there, with regards to the council, a section that speaks to censure?

There is not.

Okay. So maybe it's like a two step where, with the mayor, I think a logical addition would be some provision for removal. And then if there is to be an inclusion of censure, I would think that it covers both the council and the mayor.

So like Excuse me. But that came from the Robert's Rules process was where the censure came from. Am I Technically, I in the way that we experienced it over the last couple of years, it came from the council's inherent authority to regulate its members. Okay. That's what ultimately the

court held. That's right. Okay. That's right.

Okay. So they went back to like old English and found that it was a inherent power, if you will, of the legislative authority to censure its own members.

And it

did not reference, Robert's rules.

Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Ryan.

No, no, no. It's okay. This is helping me think through it. I appreciate it. So if we look apples to apples, you know, counsel to mayor, I do think that the removal section, well, it is missing for the mayor. I think the one question, and maybe this is for Mr. Pitchford is, like, I it sounds like maybe there's two mechanisms for removal. I'll call one internal. Like, that's the council says, you're out. And then the external, the arduous one would be the recall. So that's kind of the way I'm bifurcating. The else can do it or the voters can do it. Yes.

Yeah. I think the cleanest way to do it is if the council sections in three point one one and three point one two or three point one one and three point one three work, which we haven't discussed them yet, so we don't know that. But maybe 4.03 could be divided into two sections, and we just have them both both mayor and council piggyback off each other. I I don't I mean, I see more like I mean, if you're if you if you're speeding down the road, you either get a warning or you get a ticket. Yeah. And, I mean, I don't know. Maybe there's something else in between that I don't know about.

Well But Actually, there's a third. You get locked up.

That's

true. If it's really fast. That's egregious. Yeah. So in and I guess in the case of an elected official, I could see censure as the warning and removal as the ticket and, you know, bring the police in and haul the person out of there if they've, you know, brought a gun to the meeting.

And I'd be like the recall.

Yeah. I don't But I don't see a need for a suspension, a temporary suspension on an elected official. To me, that would just seem to be really tedious. I mean, what would be the purpose? I don't want you in meetings for the next two months. It's mean right.

And I think that's what the my to answer you, kind of go back to your question, to answer, I think that's what expel means, right? I think that you were kicked out of the meeting, whereas removal is you are deprived of your elected office. You can be expelled from the meeting and you would still have your constitutional rights because you were elected, right? You you are vested with a with a property right if you, become elected. But what would be the

purpose for expelling someone from a meeting?

Bad behavior. Move to the route control.

Yeah. I mean, to to you would be shutting down that person's ability to participate in the meeting. And if they're participating in a way that's improper and the rest of council agrees on it, then you have temporarily been able to fix the problem by asking them to leave. Having just said that, I sat here and realized something that I hadn't considered before this very moment. Why does council get to make that decision about, and why would they be allowed to remove a mayor who is independently elected into that office? He doesn't answer to counsel. Right? That that was kind of my comment earlier.

Right? That's why I was gonna in we were talking about three thirteen. I was gonna skip the first two sentences. Right? They're they're not the judge of the qualifications for the mayor. Right. They are not the judge of their their members. So the question is, you know, is there a internal mechanism to remove someone for gross misconduct or or whatnot? Know? That their job?

Not decided that. Yeah. I think the question, does counsel have that right and authority over any other elected office outside of their own group?

So they answer in Hudson, the answer

is no. Okay. And isn't that intentional? Isn't that how our government was set up with a council mayor?

In what I would call a statutory city or a statutory village would that does not have a charter that just operates under the revised code. That is how it works. There no removal. Is only it's only a recall. There are other I think the attorney general and those kinds of things, but it's not

So you could see a scenario sorry, one second. Like where the mayor could be adored by the community, but the council is made up of six people who hate the mayor. So to Mr. Trainer's point, that that

They don't have oversight today, and nor should they, is what I think our governance is. But maybe I'm wrong.

And then we'd come back to the one option of recall. Recall.

Recall is by the electors,

and that's where

that's where listening in. It seems like the electors could potentially we could potentially give the electors a way to do censure. So it wouldn't be council doing it. It would be somebody that like, a petition from I don't I don't really know how to articulate this, but you would give that governing the authority for the mayor, which would be the the citizens, the the electors, an ability something before section 12 o three, which would be the recall. It would but I don't know what we would I

just it's the recall. Well, that becomes cumbersome.

Yeah. I know. I know. I I know. I do.

I mean, you could always happens frequently. People decide they just wanna make a petition. And so they write one up, they put it on the front cover and they don't put it on the rest of the pages and they go around and they get illegible signatures from their neighbors. And they're all like, look, we got 80 signatures for this. But they didn't collect addresses. Yeah. They didn't make sure there weren't duplicates. I mean, it's not on the right form. It's as it's it's a letter with excessive signatures is what it is. And it it counts sort of in the public opinion, the court of public opinion, but it it has no authority over anybody. That's still but that still carries weight if, like, it comes to counsel and they hear it in a public meeting.

It is, two points. First point, it has been my, legal opinion that the city council, here in Hudson does not have even the ability to censure, the mayor, at this point because it's not, you know, it's not in the charter of Judge, the

the character.

Appease silent and it does, does express it, for the other for the council members that it is not permitted. I have stated that opinion. Then I would also back to Mr. Ryan's point about six people have an axe to grind and again, talking about game gamemanship, you know, looking here, how could we have fun with this? And I need to read the sentence, you know, it may remove any, the mayor will say for for disqualification for office. What's disqualification for office? Right. I mean, that's the fun lawyer. The rest of it, gross misconduct, that's hard. Malfeasance is is, really hard.

You know, nonfeasance, that's when he doesn't do his job to show up. But disqualification for office? That's that's pretty flim flimsy. Let me ask.

When you go back when you go back to two point o one, it it makes it really clear to me on how we want this government set up. And it says that we are a mayor, council manager. And council has the ability to appoint the city manager. That's part of the checks and balances in my opinion that's intended here. They do not. I don't think we want them to have power over the mayor. I think it's a very intentional part of our government that we want the mayor to

be independent of counsel. I would I would agree that it has, certainly till tonight, and I'm not taking a position one or the other, it has absolutely been intentional.

How this is just occurring to me. In the very first sentence of four point o three, it says, the office of the mayor shall be deemed vacant, and then it lists a bunch of things that can happen. But it doesn't say deemed vacant by by whom? Well, okay. If it's death, maybe there's a death certificate. If it's resignation, maybe there's a letter. If it's removal from office, there's results from the board of elections. If it's disqualification or inability to perform, who's to say? No. It the cap the charter doesn't say.

So I I don't think it would be a an an overstepping or a drastic change to insert deemed to add the word by the council, deemed by the council to be vacant. So if the council either receives a death certificate, the letter of resignation, something from the board of elections about removal, or has concluded that the the mayor is disqualified or hasn't performed the duties. Otherwise, I don't know why we have that in the charter because there's no way of anyone there's there's no way for the office to be deemed to make it deemed vacant for those reasons because there's no way of concluding it.

Well, my my question was how how does somebody actually approach having a recall of the mayor? I mean, from the public. Like you say, you would have to get a form with a petition and have certain numbers, signatures, and so and so forth. Well, shouldn't that be in the charter? Spell it out as the method that could be used to recall

It is in 12.

Is it

their is in 12. They would

fall under the elected officials. Yeah. Yeah. This this so last year 12

o three is recall. Okay.

Last year, the University Heights elected officer. University Heights censured their mayor. You probably mispretrieved. You probably know all about this. But it it looks like it was it was council driven. So council

And I wonder

if there does their charter So it doesn't say that?

Yeah. I'm re it doesn't say, but it says that 70 residents were present for the seven to zero vote to censure. And it was a it was a council vote. So they must have it in their their charter that the council The council.

Oh, but they have a different structure. There's something about Cleveland Heights that it's

Well, they just changed their charter to convert from a city manager, I believe, to a strong mayor form of government, and I don't know how it works.

And that would then that

would Probably they put all Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well I mean,

do we do we think the the process is broken? Have we you know, do we feel that there needs to be a change? And we're, you know, we're sitting here. We're analyzing words. We're digging in deep.

But going back to previous years, have we has there been a derelict of duties where the mayor stays in charge? And I'm wondering, are we trying to fix something that's not broken? Going back to what mister Treynor said earlier, I mean, I you know, once I start seeing something, oh, you know, you're right. There is something different. But then going back to miss Norman's comment and, you know, I I hear you, mister Hegler, but part of me thinks if we add that one line about, disqualification or inability to perform per city council, then that's now giving city council the authority over the mayor, which then we went back last week and we decided in the mayor, we're not gonna define the duties specifically. Right. I yeah.

I don't know. I I got it. I'm just not it's this is not broken. This is not this is not something we need to fix.

Okay. I I'm

gonna put wrong independence is I agree. Part of what we're we want to have.

And if if the mayor is a problem

The electors have

We

a process. And it's not it might it is a tedious process. Yeah. It's a process.

But it's a process. And if

it's bad enough and it's egregious enough, then the the electors will do that.

Yeah. And I

think if if if the council has the authority over each its members, but if the voters have the authority over the

mayor Yeah.

The voters have the ability through recall to remove.

Mhmm.

Voters have the ability through their mouths Yeah.

To censure.

Yeah.

They could come to meetings. They could sign a petition even though it's not like a legal elected petition, but it's a something with 400 signatures or something.

Vote of no confidence.

There's enough Step away from the board, I feel like I saw the voice. Right? Yeah.

And if there's enough rumblings, I would think the mayor kinda read the writing on the wall and be like, I'm just gonna step back and design myself before it gets to that point. And

then it's covered under resignation. We move on.

That works.

Man, Mr. Kaler.

So very good discussion. We're gonna leave section four point o three alone.

Did you Yeah. Mister Koehler, before we move on, may I reference the if you count up the third to the last line in four point o three Yep. Going back to last week's lengthy conversation.

Yes.

The first regular council meeting after the county board of elections certification of the vote of the vote following the election.

I was just gonna say, well, thank you for, pointing that out because when I saw that here, I'm like, why did we spend

so

so much

time last week talking about

that language when it was on the

next So,

in 4.01, we talked about removing in December and then adding something else. So I would suggest since that language is already in four point o three, picking that up and using that. Is everybody okay with that?

Yes. Yes.

Four point o one? I agree. Yes. Yep. For four point o three. Thank Anything else on four point o three? 4 four is absence, mister Hoover.

In the event of an absence of the mayor, the president of the council shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of mayor while retaining all the powers and responsibilities of president of council and as amended November 2000.

No suggestions for change on that. Any comments, questions, suggestions on that?

Are we good?

Question. Yes. Sorry. I'm sorry, guys. So in 403, right, it outlines sixty days. Is there any mister Pritchard, is there any definition of is it a day? Is it a month? Is it a quarter? Like, what an absence is? Like, how long does the mayor have to be absent before the council? You know?

Like It's sixty days.

So the way that I have interpreted this, because, again, there's a lot of room for a gamesmanship What if he goes on vacation?

Yeah. That's what I'm like, hey, moral day weekend. He's gone for three days. Beat it. So

You know, it it it matters a lot more in the strong mayor scenario where the council president, is adverse adverse to the mayor and he goes and fires the Chief of Staff. And there's lots of things that you could see happening. So it has always been, and this is, I don't say, universal, but it is, I think, a consensus for lawyers that do what I do that this language is construed to apply primarily to just meetings. Right? So he'll he presides at the meetings.

But, beyond that, because otherwise, it's there really isn't. And I have researched it. There's not, a lot of authority on it. So the I guess, really kind of common sense and you really want to avoid those games. Yeah. It's been construed to, just narrow to meetings.

Okay. And I am not advocating for any change whatsoever. It's my curiosity. I'll just point out, though, for

your intellectual curiosity, we have a different standard for council members than for the mayor. So the mayor gets sixty days, which is a long time, but council has three meetings in a row, and they're why? But we don't have to fix that if we don't want to. That's all.

Yeah. About the only thing that I would, since it refers to meetings, about the only thing I would see that we could add is something where it, in the in the event of absence of the mayor from a meeting at which the mayor is to preside. I mean, that's if that's understood in between the lines, that's fine. But the only duties of the mayor, as we discussed last week, are the only powers of the mayor are to be a judge, which we don't have that active right now, introduce ordinances, resolutions and motions, participate and receive information, and preside at regular and special meetings of the council at which legislative actions can be taken. So it's pretty limited.

Those are the only duties. All of the other things that any a particular mayor may happen to do that are above and beyond that that we talked about last week that are are popular with residents of voters. Those aren't duties of the mayor. They're attributes of the So it's your pleasure. Leave it alone. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Article four is done. We are back go back one article to article three. Article three is the council. And page and a half of suggestions

in our charts.

Two pages of suggestions in our chart. That's why I saved it for last. So section three point o one is composition and terms. Miss Norman, Did

you do that?

Yes. Section three point o one, composition and terms. The council should consist of seven members, a majority of whom shall be elected one from each four wards of the municipality and the remaining three elected at large. Ward boundaries shall be redrawn by a majority of council to reflect approximately equal population based upon a change due to annexation or a change in population in accordance with The US census data revised each decade within one year of receipt by the municipality of final census data. Terms of members of council shall be staggered such that the ward council members from Wards 123, And 4 shall be elected at the regular municipal election in 2003 and every fourth year thereafter, while the at large council members shall be elected at the regular municipal election in 2001 and every fourth year thereafter.

The terms of members shall be four years commencing at the first regular meeting in December following their election and shall continue until their successors have been elected and sworn into office. Amended in, 02/2010.

Thank you, miss Norman. And, before I go into the chart suggestions, the one thing that we would definitely be doing is at the end of this, removing the end December and adding the, time that they start. So two different changes at the end. We have on pages one and two of our chart eight different suggestions. Some of them may be overlapping to this one section of the charter.

This is the winner winner chicken dinner section of the charter. They may be overlapping. So the first one, this is the one, two, three, four, five, sixth row, and it's also row number six if you have a row number on your chart. This is from council member Bandweg. What's referenced here is, term limits prioritized for the ballot twelve year total service term limits.

Hudson has a wealth of skill and knowledge in our residents. When more residents are involved in government, more residents are aware of local government workings, and there is more government action aligned to the interest of the residents. This elevates the quality of government and the quality of life in the community. I recommend a twelve year total service limit, which allows the individual to run for whatever office they like, but serve for no more than twelve years eliminating political gamesmanship gamesmanship or timing manipulation. Next row is another, councilman Bandweg suggestion regarding ranked choice voting.

That's I'm gonna save that since that's one of our big issues. The next one after that, this is, row eight. This says realign swearing in timing, prioritize for the ballot time with term limits. Council members shall be sworn in beginning of their term in January. I won't read the rest of that. We've already addressed that with our removal of December. Let's go on.

The next

one does the same thing.

The next, one is suggestion similar suggestion from council member Byrd about the January timing. Same thing. The next, this is row now I'm down to row 10. This is similar to mister Bandweg's earlier council member Bandweg's earlier suggestion about term limits. This mentions twelve consecutive years with the mini minimum without a minimum no more than twelve consecutive years without a minimum of two years cooldown between prior service and new service.

Alternately, you could limit to three full terms period without eligibility to run for, future office on council. Next was from councilwoman Kawalski. Charter. That's ranked choice voting, so we'll save that one. And then next one, the last one on the bottom of page one is from councilman Sutton. This is all about ranked choice voting as well. We'll save that. And two more. No. One more.

Top of page two, Councilman Sutton. Timing. And we've already addressed that.

Mr. Pitchford? I'm just going to, comment that, Mr. Bandweg regrets that he can't be here, but he's, unable to respond as to Okay.

Just wanna report that. Alright. Thank you.

Mister Koehler, can I ask a question before we dig in?

Yep.

In regards to changing, like, the the verbiage, from the December to the new how does that look on a ballot? Does it say all language that looks like this will now become this, or do do people have to vote on each individual section? I'm just curious from the voting perspective what it looks like.

When how commissions have done it in the past is we'll have a bunch of sections that we've talked about.

Mhmm.

And I I like to talk about them in different buckets. The big bucket are the Yeah. No brainers.

Yep.

Lump them all together, have the solicitor prepare an ordinance to that effect. Council passes that ordinance, and it goes to ballot as one issue.

Got it.

Shall the following sections of the charter be amended? It lists a whole bunch. Understood. It doesn't say much.

Yep.

Then after the big bucket, then you you pick out from that. It might be the big issues that we've discussed, if any of those are going be on the ballot. And then maybe some anything else as part of the rest of all that we've talked about that might be a little more controversial we want people Like to we talked about for term limits. We talked about three different options.

Right.

I've got a little more thoughts on that, but that that would be something where the the the ballot issues would be more specific.

Right.

And you would it would be and you have a little more latitude when you're putting one ballot on issue on, and that can be you can kinda have that fed to the board of elections, however, depending on how the ordinance is drafted as well. You can even some of the past Charter Review Commission ordinances have included this would dear board of elections, this is our suggested ballot ish ballot language. They can put on whatever they want.

This is the question we would like you to summarize.

Got it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Just numbers only for the big bucket and more information on the

more Got it.

So for example, that would be like, we want to change the responsibilities of reporting to the from the finance director to the Clerk of Counsel and it would change these six sections.

Got it. That makes sense. Okay.

Thank you. Comments on Section 3.01, knowing full well that we're going to be saving ranked choice voting for a later date.

Follow term limits in three zero one that we've come up with the, you know, the two options and the status quo is a third. I mean, does it fall in that same bucket or is it a separate bucket?

Term limits, we talk forward boards. Right?

Mhmm. But last week, we also talked about having this listener direct draft Yes, sir. Three different options

Yeah.

Of term limits for the mayor.

Yep. For the mayors.

And as I've thought about that over the past week, I thought a lot of times if you give voters a bunch of options, it just becomes, you know, that they like, they wanna know what we recommend. Yeah. And it's it's unfortunately, you kinda have to take a choice. And if we if we were to instead of putting a twelve year or whatever or an eight year with a two year cooling period or however else it was gonna be worded and then also a nothing, then I just think it would be much more effective to to pick the one that we think is the most reasonable, put that on alone as an option. And it it either applies it if it passes or it defaults back to how it is if it's not.

But I just find that even though if you have three issues and the one that gets the most votes, the one that wins, a lot of people don't know why. Why am I voting on three things that are related to each other? They might just stop at the at the second question and whichever one's first on the ballot and say, well, that was what? I already voted for that. Why am I voting on that again? I mean, to me, there's a lot of ways that it

could go wrong. Yeah.

So My only question with the term limits was if we did make changes to the actual, like, government structure, not boards, it go would it be retroactive the minute it's voted on?

Or

We how does that

would have to put language in there to say, the clock starts with terms that begin on or after, and it would be going forward.

It wouldn't vacate half a bar.

The next Yeah. I'm just gonna try to do it years out. So this is what? '25 is gonna be effective in in '27.

Okay. And I even put You're in starting

the clock in '27. Okay.

I maybe even put it in my comments to a part of last week, put 27,000,000 in as a starting point. So it's kind of like a phase in.

I know we're not quite on that topic yet, but the term limits, you could also like we have the recall provision for all elected officials that we you might consider putting it in that chapter and so it's concise as to all elected officials. But you have one

for I like that.

You have one for boards of commissions and then you have one for elected officials and you've got them both. It's yeah.

Then

I

like it. It's a blanket. Yeah.

Just make it concise. Like like, almost like that model was talking about that.

That what you're adding to what is that? Eleven, twelve twelve

or whatever that Yeah. 12.

I mean, I do think that makes sense. I'm simple. So if the mayor and the council had the same term limits, that to me makes sense. And then, I mean, the board could have their own term. Maybe it's easy just to make them all the same. But I do think for definitely for the elected, for the council and the mayor, like, I think those term limits should be consistent and uniform.

It also under, Section seven, Article seven, which is nominations, elections and qualifications.

Right now, there are no term limits, correct, for counsel? Right.

Right. Yeah.

Maybe Uniform more than for every, right, for all elected officials. Could put it under seven. In fact, that might make more sense there because it's nominations, elections, and it talks about either primaries and then the ballots and then the elections and qualifications, you would just create another one. Like that color.

Feel like

that will read well on the ballot. I agree. The way that you structure that, it's So really cut and

if we did that, going back to the takeaway the third choice, which was

nothing. Nothing.

Nothing. And go back to the first two choices, which I think as the way I worded it. Was it

We're looking at at line six.

I like the idea of putting it in seven.

Yeah. I do too.

Seven I'd like make a seven point o five.

Mhmm.

Line six and line 10 had the the term limit descriptions.

Actually, you know what? I I actually said I put it in here. I think she did. Maybe on page page four. I'd asked the partner to add a new line about two thirds of the way down the page. It says section seven point o five new.

Oh, yeah.

I should've read that before the meeting tonight. So and it was that was where I put the three options that we talked about last week. So what we're talking about is instead of having the solicitor draft that new three versions of that new section just to draft one new three point o five Yeah. Or one new seven point o five, have it be a probably have it be a separate ballot issue since it's likely to generate a little bit of interest and people will be really tuned into it. It would also Mr.

Pitchford had pointed out that there's a in the end of section 4.01, there's something that just generally says the mayor shall have the right to run for reelection. It doesn't say the same thing anywhere for the council. So if we put a term limit in 7.05 Yeah. We'd have to strike would also have to strike that sentence for 4.01.

Yeah.

Then if we have that, which and I'm not I'm not saying I just gave I gave you my thoughts. I don't think we should do three. I think we should pick one and have the people vote on it. And if they vote no and if we or the council want to suggest something else at some point, try option b, but don't clog them up on agree the same election. So if that's the case, which version?

I'll just throw out since we spent a lot of time coming up with the twelve years for the board and commission members. I think that would be one way to do it. The other would be if and I think that might be a good first attempt. And if people say, no, I'm fine with that for the board and commission members, but, you know, I don't wanna limit my elected officials to to twelve years. That's different.

Other way to look at it would be if we wanna put on the ballot the what are we two terms or eight years with a two year cooling off period. I I personally find that although I understand it, I find it confusing to say to get the words out of my mouth and also to understand. And if I do or we do, I think the voters would I

think it's responsible to just introduce it at the most foundational level. And then if a future committee wants to introduce cool off periods and things like that, we've established the runway for that. So I agree with you. I think maybe keep it simple and don't do the cool off period, but do establish twelve years.

Yeah. As a total. Exactly. Yeah.

Three full terms is a long time. I think that's appropriate. If you want to have term limits, that seems right to me.

Gonna push back just a bit, not on the concept, but just a suggestion. And we talked about this before that I would suggest we include language that it would be elected. Elected three terms. Don't call it twelve years, but elected to three terms, because you're gonna have like, you can't have somebody serve twelve years and they get appointed to fill a non expired term because there's a vacancy in the office. And then all of a sudden, they're forced out because they're, what, disqualified under I mean, it's just talk about confusing. I would I would suggest that it would be, you know, like, you know, emphasis on the word elected to to three full terms.

And that's if if you would look in the

Three full year term for for three full four year terms or twelve years, whichever is less. Yeah.

If you look was

He has an elective office.

An elective office.

That's number one two. That's the number one option in my my three would have in the paragraph.

So so I'm gonna go there was less

just is exactly what I'm suggesting we might do.

Right. You would say whichever is more.

Whichever is more.

Yeah. I'm fine with that. I understand what you're saying. Somebody comes in halfway through, has two years as a fill in, but then gets elected three times, they still get their fourteen years. I'm good with

The example would be somebody moves out of town right after the, their in the third year of their term. Yep. Right?

Somebody has step for a year

and a half Yep. Then do the point of person and now they their their their last term is shortened.

So three full elected terms or twelve years, whichever is greater. I'm fine. I think

So that makes total

I'm gonna go to the mat about the cooling off period, but I'm not gonna go to the mat on the number of years. I you'd say, an equivalent term off. And I I'm thinking about well, like, one of the things that's great about our country is the fact that anybody who decides that they wanna run for an office can just do it. I don't recommend it. It's kinda hard.

But you can. Mhmm. And we are imposing a limitation on that freedom that makes us distinct among many other places in the world where you either have to be the right heritage or the right level of education, or there are other qualifiers that would keep you from running for a public office. So I'm I really do support term limits because I know what the power of incumbency is, but I really do think it's important for us to just create a hiccup, just a break. And if you want to come back and run again, well, by golly, get some good shoes and go out and start getting the signatures and come on back.

And if you make it, fine. And if you don't, that's how it works. That's just it's just I feel I just feel very strongly about protecting that freedom for whoever wants to run for office, but without being able to abuse the power of incumbency once they've gotten there. Does that make sense?

It does make sense.

And I I I would just challenge that a little bit in that somebody's elected successfully twice goes to run well, even elected successfully once, they go to run for their second term. If there is a candidate who is strong enough and persuasive enough, they're gonna win, whether it's the second term or the third term. So, like, on one hand, I I hear and

I

acknowledge, like, how hard it is to beat an incumbent, but that's that's what the electoral process is all about. Like, if somebody wants that office that bad, then they need to make their case and they need to pound the pavement. Because otherwise, my thought process for the for the, the break is kinda like you're intentionally interrupting momentum so somebody else has the possibility to come in, where I'm kinda like, hey. Let the best person win. That that's like, so I I get the like, on one hand, I understand the logic.

And on the other hand, I'm like, somebody can run, you know, person can win that first election. Somebody can come in and challenge them in their second election and somebody can come in and challenge them in the third election. And then there is no fourth election for that person. So, like, I I I can hear and understand and appreciate both sides of the argument. To me, it almost sounds like, hey.

You know, if somebody is, not great and they're going to run for that third term, then somebody's gonna knock them out. So, like, I'm I like the three, you know, the three elected terms, and that's where having a having a sunset or cooling off, I think, actually could cause more disruption than value. That's my perception.

My piece is in agreement with that. I like the sunsetting or the cool off period for the boards and commissions. I think structurally, the work that they do is a little bit more abbreviated with regard to time line. My concern with a cooling off period is that some of the legislation that may be activated during a term, you may interrupt that purely because the cool off period comes up. And you may be unable to chase and finish the legislation that was proposed during your first two terms or whatever.

I am not against it. I think that I'm just looking at it structurally saying cool off period for a government, like an elected government position, less seems to be a little bit more impactful interrupting maybe than in a boards and commissions framework where the work is a little bit faster and performed within the space of that term. So that's my piece to it. I think I just like the idea of being able to keep the momentum of both your your incumbency, but also the work that you're doing in that period of time as well without it being interrupted by the charter. That's my piece.

Yeah. I I have less, maybe governmental experience than some in the room. However, I think one of the challenges we have with federal, local, state government is that you get these oligarchies. You get these these groups that stay in power. And if you think about twelve years ago, how different we were as the city of Hudson, how different the country was, change is good.

And I think forcing change with what is happening in the world at the time, especially at the pace that we change now versus maybe fifty years ago, is good. And so I think that's a real strong argument. And I've seen it on association boards where a group wants to just stay in power. And and and I don't think that's what we want. I think we want to give new people an opportunity to come in and make a change. I I wouldn't be completely opposed to a cooling off, but I come back to the simplicity thing. I think That's right. It it's just too complicated. Three terms three full terms is probably elected terms is probably the right answer.

To me, if you have a cooling cooling off period, that would I think that would almost be a de facto term limit of itself.

You're to

to me, if you're going to do eight plus two year cooling off period, then you might as well do an eight year term. And I know I hear also the concerns about the powers of incumbency, but I think that what it said Mr. Moray described it somewhat as well. If you wanna run for office against an incumbent, the way you win is either by the incumbent doing something really wrong or really bad or by you showing that you're gonna do a much better job than the good job that that or the the good or mediocre job that that company is doing. It's very different than just running against someone who's not two people running for an open position.

And I I I would hesitate to kind of have term limits trying to you trying to be used to address that, the incumbency issue. I think it's it's real, but I think that the way it's it's up to the person running against them to either make the case or it's up to the incumbent to screw up. And if the incumbent hasn't screwed up and they're doing a good job, they have a they have more of a record to run on than someone else who, without trying, is going to run against them to to replace them. It's just those are just some observations I had. And just to to point out the way I did this was just my, amateur take at drafting.

The number one of the three options that included here would be the closest to what we're talking about. But the way I drafted it was with I mean, yes, the whichever is less should be with whichever is greater. But the way I drafted it was by saying, they run for reelection or for another municipal office. And I tried to pull the terms right out of the chart. I said, elective officer, and elective officer refers to a mayor or the council member.

And then I put in there, provided that no person shall serve more than three terms, blah blah blah, as an elective officer of the municipality. So whereas we said for the boards and commissions, your twelve years or or three full terms is on that board or on that commission. This would be as an elected officer. So if you wanna serve eight years as a councilman and you wanna run for mayor, you can only serve for mayor for four years because that and that's just the way I drafted it. So it doesn't have to be that way, but this was as elective officer.

If you if you wanna say as, you know, for a specific municipal office, then essentially, with a twelve year, somebody could serve thirty six years, 12 as ward, 12 as at large, and 12 as mayor. And if that's what you want, fine. But I thought you wanted more of a if you want a twelve year, you this would be more of, like, as an elective officer. When I hear about it, I'm like, oh, well, you'd have to think, well, if I if I'm running for office and I wanna start on council, but I wanna be mayor someday, then, maybe I just wanna do one term as mayor so I have a chance of running for two terms or one term on council so I have a chance of running for two terms as mayor. Or maybe I don't want to be on council first. So if you think that's too strict

I would restrict it within council. I think jumping from at large to wards would probably be going against the spirit of what we're trying to do. I don't know that it's intriguing though. Again, remember, the powers and duties of the mayor are very different. So if somebody was that beloved by the community that they went from council to mayor or mayor to council, I think we would allow that. So I don't know how we separate that out. I wouldn't wanna lump it all together. But I do think getting your twelve years is is at large, twelve years that's gaming the system probably. And or I mean, I can make an argument that you're only doing that because you're getting the votes, but that would be my fault. Like We

can we can change it. I can you know, as a member of council or mayor. Right? So if elected office, you can we just those couple words will change that outcome. If that's the

I I tend to agree. I mean, I I

think if you're really good at council, even if you

did two years

It's probably a good thing for you. Yeah. Yeah. Mister Kegler is here because he's got experience and he's leading us because this has been He's done

it before.

Yeah. Valuable to have this historical. Absolutely. Like, it's a perfect example.

Yeah. Yeah. I I would say though in counterpoint to that, we're just a board. And so there's no money on the line and the expenditures aren't there. And the one place we have had problems is that we get people elected to council, and then they serve adequately, marginally, whatever whatever they do, and then they decide to become mayor, and they stay for a really long time. They negotiate they negotiate with others outside of their purview, and then we get people who become, they start in council and become mayor for and they they all work together. They were all part of the same thing. They're all tag teaming off of each other. And then they create a dynasty that's, frankly was only defeated because if some of them got so old, they had to step down.

I Yeah.

Well, then maybe maybe it's just twelve years. Even

though even though I even though I, you know, really feel great about people running for office. I mean, move on already. Right. State representative or county something. Yeah. You know? But, yeah, That's

80 is the new 40, you know.

And don't separate it. I I'd be good to keep it not I

hope so.

Yeah. Don't separate it then. I think just you get twelve years as an elective

That's who you're asking.

Or three full terms, whichever is greater as an elective official.

I agree. And that'll give future charter commissions the ability to just tweak it and make adjustments as it happens.

So a new section seven point o five, twelve years or three full terms three full four year terms, whichever is greater as a member of council.

I mean, it's it's elected. Right? It's elected Yeah. I wanted

to add the word elected in there. As opposed to appointed.

So Yeah. This is either it's it's it's an I was using elective officer. Elective officer. Elective officer. But there's gonna have to be some clarification that it applies shall be applied individually to the offices of mayor or a member of council, the these limits.

I'll work

with the

Alright. Property

Just to be yes. Just to be clear, though, you also mean that those are elected terms. Oh, it would have to be. To be full, it would have to be elected.

But or twelve years, whichever is greater. So if someone serves for two years, but they were appointed to an unexpired term or elected to an unexpired term beforehand, they can't run for their twelfth their eleventh and twelfth years because their term their new full four year term would go beyond. Oh, no, they could.

Yeah. Wait. I can

look at fourteen years because No.

No. No. No. I wouldn't expect it to be more than fourteen years.

The way I drafted it was with less. The less is gonna be changed to greater.

Guys, so let's know. Because I was just arguing for elected, and we're inserting the word full. So just think about it for a minute. But what if the vacancy comes in the first two years, right? And they proceed don't they have to proceed to election in the very next Midterm. Right? What right. If you're out That means for sure. And you fill it, then how does this play? What does the proposal

So you'd be elected for two years only, and then you'd be elected for two more?

Well, if you are appointed to an unexpired

Four years.

If you're appointed to an unexpired term for you an elective Elected

elect. You are you are I'm

not appointed. But once you're elected let's see. If you add the word full, they're gonna get,

15. That's why you said oh, you said whichever is greater.

Yes. So I'm

okay with that. I'll tell you that's how it plays out. I just want you to realize we've been talking about the scenario where it comes in the second half of their term. Language we're proposing would could give you up to 15, even more. I think again,

this spirit is you're running and winning And three then you're there's still

a term limit.

Agree. You got

your you got your trial

run-in, you know, the the first appointed

Tested you out. Yeah.

And and Now you're okay. No.

The appointees to those council vacancies do have to run-in the next general election. So yeah.

First thing we're gonna say is full term, not so Three full terms.

I think it's three

full terms. Legally, it would it would work out that you could have the 15 because it's the Yep. That election is the unexpired term.

You could simplify it and just say three full elected terms.

That's what we'll do.

Okay. Perfect. There we go.

That's where we were. And then I was thinking about like, hey.

How does it work out?

Yeah. Smart ourselves. Yeah. Right.

With them. Games of which Yeah.

Because anything anything appointed wouldn't count. Brooks upon. Mhmm. Any

any service in an unexpired term does not count. Period. Like, whether it's elected or appointed. Right.

You don't have whichever is whatever. Exactly. Yes.

Good. Okay. That's good.

All

right. Now that was the only part of this that we discussed. But what about the remainder of the section? Any other we're in three point where are we? We're still

in 3.0211.

We're still in one. And I'm going to reserve comments related to the staggering and stuff till we get to the rank choice because my comments are all part and parcel with that.

So what we just talked about would be the new 7.05. The only thing we're talking about in 03/2001 is the December and the adding the board of elections. Yep. Is that correct?

Yes. Yep.

Section three point o two meetings. Miss Biddleary?

The council shall conduct an organizational meeting at its first regularly scheduled meeting in December following each regular municipal election. The mayor shall preside at this organizational meeting and also at subsequent regular or special meetings at with at which legislative action may be taken. After the organizational meeting, the council shall meet regularly at such times as may be prescribed by its rules, but not less frequently than twice each month. All regular meetings of the council and all special meetings at which legislative action may be taken shall be open to the public public except as may provided by state law. Any resident of the municipality shall be entitled to speak at such meetings of the council.

Such right shall not be unreasonably abridged by any rules or regulations which the council may adopt. Council may also conduct work session meetings as necessary at which no legislative action shall be taken for the purpose of discussing legislative and other actions, which meetings shall be open to the public but shall not require any resident of the of the municipality to be entitled to speak at such meetings. It was amended in o five, ten, fifteen, and twenty.

And it looks like we received no suggestions regarding this section. Comments, questions, or clarifications from anyone? No. No?

No? Don't we

have to change December here also? I'm gonna say in the first line. First meeting

after the election of the elected officials. I'm sorry.

Do we have

to change it?

I don't know.

Well, you wouldn't want the outgoing council to conduct an organizational meeting if the incoming council

Is this a is this a different way, a better way of handling it? I don't I'm not sure it is. But

I I would I would agree to add the same language language.

We put elsewhere? Yeah.

It's a nice big bucket.

Three point o two. Section 3.03 is President, Ms. McCoy.

At each organizational meeting of counsel, the members first shall elect by majority vote, a member to the Office of President of Council for a two year term. A member so elected for two consecutive full two year terms shall thereafter be ineligible for that office for the next succeeding term. The president of council shall exercise all of the powers and perform all of the duties of the mayor in accordance with the provisions of sections four point o three and four point o four. The president of council may appoint committees of council to advise the council on any functions of the municipal government. The president of counsel shall preside at all meetings of counsel at which no legislative action may be taken amended in 2000, 2005, and 2015.

I see two, I'll call them competing suggestions to section three point o three. One was from councilman Foster, and the other was from councilwoman Kowalski. Mister Foster's suggestion, president of council being liaison liaison to city staff shall remain informed of communication between members of council and the and city staff by fellow council members. Purpose, the agenda was at one time set by three individuals, the council president, the mayor, and the city manager. It was clear that at that time that if you wanted to work with staff, the council president would always remain informed as that was the only member of council engaged primarily interacting with staff.

Since agendas are now set at public workshops for transparency purposes, some council members have ceased including the council president on correspondence with staff. It is paramount that council not direct staff and that there be at least transparency with how staff is being asked to act or projects or or projects in projects in which they have been asked to engage. This has this had always been the proper way of acting as a body. While I personally do not see eye to eye with a former council president, I never engaged with staff without copying the former council president and city manager at the time. In a similar regard, and for example, when the Environmental Awareness Committee was asked for goals, I provided my notes.

In order to respond to their directed request, the council member, who is the liaison over that committee directed staff without including myself in that correspondence, do not provide my input to the environmental aware awareness committee until other council members had weighed in, none of which ever did. I only found out via public records request that the member had clearly directed staff to ignore my information and demanded that they follow in her instructions, an obvious charter violation. As council president, I was completely unaware of the interaction until I was forced to find out why my input had not been given to the committee. There needs to be some formal instruction directing council members to respect the decisions of the majority by voting for the member of council who is seated as president, even if that direction is only to keep the president informed as to staff interactions. And miss Kowalski's suggestion was, and this was abbreviated.

There was a a long email that was included in your prior account one of your prior council packets. This is the synopsis of it. Do not change or add to council president's authority per 423 email message regarding then this would be per councilwoman Kowalski's 423 email message regarding Chris Foster's suggestions starting with the president of council being the liaison to city staff shall remain informed of communication between council members and city staff by fellow council members. So we had a suggestion to add that first two liner by mister, Foster and a suggestion by Ms. Skowalski not to do that.

Now back to Section 3.03. The only thing I can think of in the past is there's been discussion by past commissions about the two year or the two consecutive term limit without saying it. This is an example of that, sunset with the cooling off period without saying it because it's two consecutive periods or two consecutive terms. The terms are two years, so you could be council president for four years. They go off for two, and then you're eligible to serve again. No limit. That's the only things I've ever heard of being discussed. So comments, questions, what's your pleasure on this section?

Question. Like, how do they end up on council president giving a two year term? Why is it two years versus just each year doing it? Because you're having an organizational meeting at the beginning of each year. It seems like action is only being taken every other year. So like if someone's elected the first year, what do they do in the next year?

It's it's basically, it's because there's a council election every two years. So after a council election at which either three or four members of council are elected, the new council, once it's formed with no more than three new members or four new members, depending on the particular election year, that new council agrees. They form they elect a president, and that president serves for the until the next council's elected. So the council, it basically creates a a a term between municipal elections. Some communities do it by the year. It it just depends. That's kinda just how it's been done at least since merger here. I don't know how it was done before merger.

I I would chime in on this. I have lived here in Hudson twenty five years, and I know that this has been an issue of council members either being excluded or excluding, it can go both ways, the council president on communications with city staff and boards and commissions. That's it's one thing if you're the liaison, to that that board or commission. So this is not, while some of the changes that have been brought to us are sort of specific as to the very defined nature problem of at one point in time they were trying to fix, this is something I've seen that has a history that transcends just one administration. So I would I'd be inclined to consider adding that to the to the Yes.

Mhmm.

The there is a it's a it's a I can't remember the section of it, but there is a it's like a seventeen year cicada. It's a it's a bugaboo. And it's it says somewhere in the charter that councils all communication with the city stat with the administrative service shall be through the city manager. Do you remember is that in,

like, six?

The city manager, I

think. It's Yeah. Okay. So it's in And it's it's very brief, and it is, I just wanna

No. It's not.

To counsel?

Yeah. Section 3.12.

There you go. Section 3.12. So we'll get to that in a minute. But going back, this the the the village prior to merger and for very briefly after merger had a had a city manager for twenty nine years.

He was one of

the longest serving city managers, municipal managers in the entire country and worked with a number of council members over the years. And granted, yes, it was just for the village. It was a much smaller commit community. It wasn't even over 5,000 till 1990, but it was for almost thirty years, I think 1960 to 1990. This was interpreted very strictly. Council members did not communicate with city staff. They communicated through the city manager, and the the thought was the manager manages all the staff. It seems sounds pretty logical. Yep. And the the manager reports to all of the council.

So it was very clear and very simple. And, if council members ever didn't do that, it was very made very clear to them. I don't know by whom, but it it always, everybody got back in line and did what they were supposed to do. Since merger, I've observed it. It's yes. We're a much bigger community. We're a much bigger government. There's many municipal departments. We have multiple assistant city managers. It's probably just not practical to have all the council communication through one.

What I've observed in more recent years is maybe going when it first after merger, when the community all the chartered community got very big, all of a sudden tripled in size, it was just very different. And that envelope was pushed more. And everybody kind of found a way to work new in it. And this is not specifically observed now. I tend to think it's a good provision, but, this this relates the the council president previously, if there was one, was not a you know, anything more than someone to preside over council.

It wasn't anything related to the actual function of the government. Wasn't really a spokesperson. The mayor always did that. The manager always did that. I'm not that's not to say it's not good, and it's and it shouldn't be different now because we're a bigger community. But it relates to what we're talking about here. Because, if we start getting into the president of council having, being a liaison to city staff, you know, I don't I I think the city manager is liaison to city staff. And I'm just thinking out loud here. It's the liaison to the manager, perhaps.

Oh. You know

what I mean?

Yeah. Oh.

And and they're really I don't think that we should include insert any language into the charter that pollutes that authority of the city manager over the administrative service.

Would city managers paid correctly to manage

Correct.

The people who work for the city Correct. Where the council president is an elected official that I mean, it's it's also putting out I under I I hear both points, but it's it's putting some extra responsibility that

And if manager know, if the manager as part of the function of of being the manager wants to say, we're too big

I need help.

I I I I would like it if you would you you be the liaison to this department, you be the liaison to that department, feel free to do that. But if there isn't that check-in with the manager and it that's and it isn't made clear that that's part of the manager's authority, not part of the council's authority.

I'm I'm gonna change what I said because I think this is this is something that needs to go in council's administrative rules. They need to tell themselves Yes. We are not communicating with staff unless we copy the council. This is not part of our Yeah. Form of government. Agree. I can decide. Idea. Yeah. This is the wrong vehicle for agreeing with you.

Almost be better just at that first planning meeting after the election. Yeah. When the council comes together, just establish the rules and establish Yep. Yeah. Precedent for what Yeah. What's I don't I don't I think this is more of a interpersonal thing than a legislative thing.

Yeah. But I can

I can tell you that there have been issues before? I mean, it's yes. No. We can all we can all kinda point to that one. Yeah. But I can tell you about some others too. So Mhmm. Yeah.

So so to try and clarify this for me, is the council allowed to approach and ask city staff for things,

help? I think requesting information is one thing and, you know, asking questions is another thing, but directing staff to do something is something else. Okay. And I I think I think that, frankly, if if if some if if a council member asks a staff member to do something, whether it's a department head or a, you know, a line worker or a staff person, the staff person's completely within their rights, and they should it should be made part of their duties that they go to the manager, they go to their reporting assistant, city manager, and they say they say, this council member asked me to do this. What do I do?

And it it's up to the it is up to the manager because the the manager reports to all of the council. The council acts as a body, not as a group of individuals. And, technically, all the direction to the manager should come through its actions as a body. If individual council members need information from staff members in order to perform their duties as council members, that's one thing. But if, I mean, certainly, someone says, like, somebody on my street, there's a dead there's a dead raccoon in front of their house, do what do they call public police department?

And they say, can you come out to my what to report that as a as an issue. I mean, it's a bad example, but I don't know.

So so is there anything under the council's administrative abilities that says individual council members cannot direct staff?

Section 3.12.

Yeah. It said I mean, it says very clearly that they've got to go through the city manager.

Can we ask Mr. Sheridan to weigh in on this? Are we on base, off base?

We're all on base and Mr. Kegler is right on too, as I think the city got big and 3.12 is what I've referred to. I know Marshall knows this, council knows this, and the mayor, many times. And it's an it's a simple thing. I guess it comes down to different city managers. This city manager wants to know what you're talking to my staff about because I can't help you. And I want you to know it's usually the fact my staff, not that they're not, They they just don't maybe understand something. And I'll be like, I could easily say this is what this is what the board chair is looking for. Bang. Bang.

Bang. Get it done. I'm I sit in meetings with Marshall. I think I I bring to the meetings a pretty simple way of this is how things get done. I asked all of council couple of times as we brought on new council members that please follow 3.12 and, just copy me.

I it's not you know, it doesn't bother me. But then it got to a point where I also told my staff and staff meeting in this room, if a councilman is asking you and directing you to do something and you don't tell me, we have a discipline issue coming, you know. So I'm covering it on both ends. So I've reached out to counsel when I think it starts to rise up, and I try to push it right back down and say, okay. You know, one time here, one time there.

But if it starts to move up, I don't want to be responsible for something I don't know about. So does that make sense? And so that's why I pushed back on 3.12, which I think gives me at least that power. And then, as I said, I decided to kind of stop some of these members of the staff from because it's not directors. It could be just some low level staff member talking to a councilman and putting together some, I don't know, event that I don't even know about.

And then they come to me and say another councilman will usually come to me and say, why are we doing this? And I'm like, what are we talking about? And I'm not gonna, you know, kinda not say that I don't know, but I usually, I don't. So I honestly don't think it's a problem. 3.12, I think, gives me the authority to keep everybody in checks and balances.

And I also think, from the ICMA, which is the International City Manager Association, we all sit around, everyone goes through this, and it's it's a board of directors, and you've appointed me the CEO. If you don't like the job I'm doing, it's in the contract that you can remove me. And I I think that is the best way. You wouldn't want a CEO of Ford Motor Company coming down to the assembly line and telling the person, hey, I want you to move your lunchbox over there and these things over here. They shouldn't be doing that. They should be going through the CEO. That's why they hired them. As you guys said, why you hire a city manager? So it's been working, I think, in the last two years very well based on that. Everybody, follows that.

And not getting into the the back and forth, the the between, the the two comments that were raised to us, I do believe that if just like mister mister Sharon gave two perfect examples where he has spoken with counsel and he's asked them to operate in a certain way and reminded them of section of the charter, he's also spoken to his staff, and they're clear on his expectations. So he's gone above, he's gone up, and he's gone down. If council wanted its president to be copied on certain things, and council wanted its president to be, have some sort of be copied on all communications by council members, council could put that into its rules of conduct. And I think that would be a good choice for that. It might be quite logical.

I think council has done a lot with its rules in the past couple of years to be a lot more clear about things. And maybe that's something that, to me, it's not a it's not that it's not a valid concern. I think that it should be addressed through council's rules.

Yeah. Agreed. I do because I think about us as a group, And one of the very first instructions was don't email everybody. Right? Email a partner, and then she'll send it back down. So I think it's kinda similar where that expectation was set in the beginning. If counsel wants to set that expectation, then they themselves can set that expectation on themselves. So I'm agreeing with you, Mr. Gabler.

And if I can read between the lines, the towards the end of the large paragraph in Mr. Foster's comment where he he says an obvious charter violation were regarding what he mentioned earlier. If if I can, surmise, I would believe that he would be referring to a violation of section 3.12, which would be directing the city staff to do something without going through the manager, not going through the council president.

So how

the council chooses to deal with that

is up to council. Implement a

RACI model, you'll be fine.

Right. So we That's were my language. In council president, do we want to leave the section alone? Yes. All right.

Curiosity question. Is there a mechanism where we can give, miss Foster and miss Kowalski that feedback that, hey. We're thank you. We appreciate the feedback. And as a group, we decided we're not going to do this and that it is if you want to change it, you, counsel, can change it.

I think at a minimum, I'll mention it on the recording now so that Aparna will get it into the minutes that we would like it reflected in the minutes what we just discussed suggesting counsel put it into the rules. But I can personally mention it to both of them.

I'm just curious because it's kind of like It's a good feels like something that the loop needs to be closed.

And we addressed it. We addressed it.

Mhmm. All

right. So we just did, the president section. And Ms. McCoy, you read that? Yes. So Section 3.04 is clerk of counsel. Ms. Griffith?

Section three point o four, clerk of counsel. Counsel shall appoint a clerk of counsel who shall serve at the pleasure of the council. The clerk of counsel shall attend all meetings of counsel at which legislative action may be taken, keep its records, and perform all other duties prescribed by the council. During the absence or disability of the clerk, the council shall appoint a clerk pro tempore to perform all of the duties of the office. And this was amended in November 20000, 2015.

No suggestions regarding that in the chart. Any suggestions from the group? No. Moving on. Section three point o five, powers. Mister Trainor.

Powers. All the legislative powers of the municipality and the determination of all matters of policies shall be vested in the council. Without limitation of the foregoing, the council may, by ordinance, make provision differing from the general law with respect to the time and place of regular meetings of the council, b, the method of calling special meetings of the council, c, the method of giving public notice to the enactment of its ordinances and adoptions of the resolutions and any other of its acts or proceedings which it deems proper to publish d, the procedure for making public improvements and including the procedure for combining two or more public improvements in one proceeding if the council finds that it will be economical and practical to undertake such improvements jointly e, the making, advertising, and awarding of contracts except as provided in section six point o four of this charter. F, the suspension of the rule requiring that legislation be read at three separate council meetings to permit legislations to be passed at one meeting provided there is an affirmative vote of at least six members if seven are present or an affirmative vote of at least five members if only five or six are present.

The affirming the affirmative vote of four members or less shall not be sufficient to suspend this three reading rule regardless of the number of members present at a council meeting, except that no such suspension may be taken on any ordinance referring to zoning or building codes or other regulations controlling the use of development of land g, the appointments of such ad hoc committees as it deems necessary for the specific purposes as approved by council and h, such other regulations as the council may deem necessary, including regulations as to the custody and the use by the clerk of council as an official seal, which shall be the seal of the municipality. As part of the council's review of the qualifications of applicants to boards, commissions, and committees to which council appoints members, councils should seek to achieve broad geographical representation, e. G, wards and or zoning districts on all council appointed boards, commissions, and committees, whether authorized by state statute, charter, or ordinance. And this was amended in in November 2000, November 2005, November 2015, and November 2020.

K. No suggestions in the chart about this. The the one change that was made in 2020 was the last paragraph, which was the aspirational language about appointment to boards and commissions. Not a requirement, but it's saying should, not shall. Questions, comments, suggestions from anyone?

Clear?

Clear. All right. 306 journal, mister Hall. Section three point o six journal. Council shall adopt its own rules, regulations, or bylaws and shall keep a journal of all of its proceedings. The journal shall be open for public inspection at all reasonable times. The voting upon any ordinance, resolution, or motion shall be by roll call, and the and the vote of each member of council shall be entered upon in the journal.

Suggestions for on the chart regarding this section? Any comments from the group?