Charter Review Committee - Regular Meeting

All right. We will call the meeting to order at 5.32. This is the review committee, the charter review committee on August 20th. We will look at the minutes from last meeting, which was August 6th. So you've had a chance to review those. I will entertain a motion for acceptance if there are no other comments.

I'd make a motion to approve the August 6th minutes. Second.

Thank you. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? All right, those minutes are approved. Moving on to item number three, which is the discussion of the prior provisions that we reviewed, or the provisions that we reviewed at the prior meeting. Ms. Wall has given us all of those corrections based on our commentary. Is there any discussion? Do we want to go through each one of these, or is there any discussion on any of this? I personally thought it looks good, but open for discussion on.

Why don't we just go one by one just to make sure? Okay. Perfect. So Section 3.8, that was originally one where I had prevented. Prevented. presented samples from multiple communities around us, and you had given feedback on structure and language. The one question I had was whether B, for the action for removal, reflected our conversation. It looked like what I had in my notes, but I just wanted to make sure that I picked the right one. So with that then, should we consider this quote-unquote final until the public hearing type situation?

I thought it reflected what we discussed in kind of the consensus. Everybody kind of had a little bit to add in, so I think it reflected that. Anyone else?

I'd agree with that statement.

Okay.

And going back, for the record, Ms. Wiggins had let us know that she will be late to the meeting. So just so that's on the minutes, we will bring her in when she arrives. Yeah, so 3-8.

OK. We will put that one in the report for the public hearing. OK. Next was section 4-1, definitions. There, essentially, the underlying point of the revisions was to add motions. to it, and then some additional language that was generally found in some of the other charters around us, which is that we are superseding the law of the state by having motions, essentially. Any thoughts, comments? Should we consider this one ready for the public hearing? Yes.

I thought it was good.

Next on the first reading, and apparently in my late-nightness, I did not put the red line in, or the color. So essentially what we were doing with the first reading was making it clear that it only moves to a second reading if it's passed at the first reading. And then also we took out the specific publication of being in the newspaper. And then I think I also simply just said it will be published according to 4.6. That way all the publication requirements are in one section as opposed to being repeated in each section in which publication is being used.

Looks good to me.

Okay, we will put that one ready for the public hearing then. Again, in publication, the question was about publishing in the newspaper, and so we removed that from the requirement, and now the requirement will be publication on the website and social media accounts, and then posted at the municipal building and two other public buildings within the city. The reason I added the social media accounts is that the actual statute says website and social media accounts. There's no difference in what has to be posted on the social media accounts. And since that is often more checked than the city's website, I went ahead and put that in there. However, this is a charter, and you certainly do not have to have that requirement in there if you would prefer to keep it at the webpage and the two, the municipal building and two other public records.

Who manages our social media? Is it the same individual as the websites?

Our communications manager, Rich Hopkins.

And that duty would continue on, so he's in charge of, Rich is in charge of the website and social media?

That is correct, yes.

Is your microphone on?

Mine? Yeah. Yes.

Okay, didn't look like it from here, sorry.

Thank you.

I mean, social media is not going away, right? So I think if we put that in there, I don't think it's overly restrictive because that's not, I mean, I think that's going to be around for a while.

It's not identifying any particular social media account. Like a newspaper, right?

It's a MySpace account.

Nor is it requiring the city to form any new social media accounts. So whatever they have, they have.

I think that's fine as long as that's attainable, what we're already doing. That's not added work, right?

I don't believe so, but we can confirm that.

He currently puts on the video from the council meeting, but then also does a brief summary of what actually the meeting, and it gives a little bit more detail of what it has the entire meeting, what council voted on and so forth. So it's a little bit more than just the legislative summaries that I post at the three buildings.

Okay.

and is also posted on our website as well wonderful so with that any comments changes anything on 4.6 i think we're good okay yeah i'm just just a comment on 4-3 i think we've clarified as far as

what is done after the first reading but i know that the question has come up if an ordinance fails or is not approved at the first reading does it still get that second reading no no so that's covered by the if approved at its first reading by council a summary shall be published and then placed on the agenda for the next council so if it doesn't pass it's not placed on the agenda okay So the two separate readings would not be required then?

Correct, because it did not pass the first.

Okay. I don't know if it would help, but for future people down the road, future councils and city leadership to add a sentence, if not approved, it would not move to a second reading, or would that not be appropriate?

I don't. It's up to the committee. I personally don't feel that that sentence is needed, because one, it's logical to me that if it doesn't pass the first reading, it wouldn't go to the second reading. But I also was raised kind of in city government, so perhaps I have a unique perspective on that.

We'll also note for the record, Ms. Wiggins has arrived.

I think we talked about that momentarily last week, didn't we, that it wouldn't go to second if it wasn't passed?

Clearly there's been a question at some point that has been raised, though.

Yeah, one of the debates that I've heard on a couple occasions is that the first statement there is that every ordinance is given two separate readings by council on two separate days. So one of the... I want to say conflicts or one of the debates that council has heard is you've got to pass it the first time to get it to the second reading, because it requires two readings the way it's written. Now it is clear that it's not going to get a second reading if it doesn't pass, but because the first statement has it's given two separate readings, the debate is okay. If it doesn't pass, does it even get another reading?

Think this is an easy fix now that I see where you're going a slight revision to that first sentence taking out the word given and Going more towards the overall requires two separate readings before formal enactment or formal adoption So why don't I work on that sentence a little bit for the next meeting, clarify that point so that there is no question on the given aspect, and we'll just remove that topic from the issue.

That's a great catch. The lawyers love this catch.

That sentence seemed clear. That's the first one.

Reading it all together. That's awesome. Thank you for that.

It's from experience.

Okay, so I will bring that one back at our September 10th meeting or whatever the actual date is.

If we're trying to get some of these and this one included on there prior to the public hearing, would it be helpful to spitball the language now?

Oh no, the public hearing's not till October. We're going to have gone through all these by the public hearing. Okay. The only ones that you guys may not have done a quote unquote second review of are the ones that are the week before the public hearing. If there are changes to that, the review may just be when I get it, when you review it prior to the public hearing. All right, thank you. Yeah, no problem. Um, and so that now takes us to article nine and the initiative and referendum. Um, there is a lot here. I will tell you that I do not have old or new fully memorized and off the top of my head. So I will be working through it with you, um, as well. Um, Essentially, the one that has been proposed is the one from Clayton, I believe, that was recently revised and adopted by Clayton and has kind of been viewed as a good starting point or clear in what the processes are in that. So I don't know if you want to actually look at the current one. See and kind of walk through what it requires right now before looking at the new one or if you want to look at the new language and Just start from there. What would be the committee's?

preference I Mean I have a preference, but I don't want to speak for everyone I would I would think we would just start from the red and move forward from there, but what is the consensus and

I was thinking, look at the old language and what we think is wrong with it and whether we're confused by it, if you will. But I will not argue either way. Mr. Dorsham, do you have a...

I think using the existing language as a starting point is all we've done.

Mr. Blank?

It's such a substantial rewrite that I'm almost... Unless you have questions about how things used to work, we'll move on to the red.

Okay.

Mr. Atkins? I reviewed some of it, and I did find a few things that didn't make sense to me, and I was in the original language.

Where would you prefer to start?

I think go through the original language. Okay.

Consensus has it. We'll start at the original.

City Manager Althaus had the suggestion that maybe we go section old, new, that way. They line up fairly close, but not exactly, but we can go from there. So first of all, just as our little 12th grade civics reminder, an initiative is a piece of legislation that is brought by the people and that says we want this on the ballot because you're not passing it, we want to pass it. Um, a referendum is a piece of legislation that council has passed that the electorate says, we don't like it. We want it off. So section nine dash one is about initiatives and essentially the original language says that the electors have the power to propose any ordinance and to adopt or reject the same at the polls. and that it is initiated by submitting to council through a petition signed by qualified electors equal to a number at least 15% of the number voting in the last general election. As some background, it is typical to use actual turnout to determine the number of people signing petitions in a situation like this as opposed to the whole electorate because Practically speaking, if you based 15% of the whole electorate, you would never get a petition on the ballot. The new language makes it clear, or even more clear than the original language, that it is only ordinances that are subject to referendum and initiative. And this is where it doesn't match up exactly because we didn't talk about referendums yet. And so, let me back up and say it this way. Ordinances are subject to referendum as permitted by the Constitution, the State of Ohio, or the Charter. So if, though, the Charter says an issue is not referendimal, is that a word, or able to be put on by initiative, it overrides the other to places where it could say it could be on the ballot. Because again, charter, home rule, we've said, great, no thanks. Also, the others, like the state of Ohio laws, cannot expand what the charter says or be used to interpret what the charter says, whether or not something may be eligible for initiative or referendum. So that's the new language. So essentially, it's basically saying, Charter controls what can be put on as an initiative or referendum. Going down to section 9.2 to catch up a little bit. Council may submit any ordinance to a vote of the people by a vote of four members. The ordinance is not subject to initiative. So in other words, if council would say we want to, on their own decision, we want the electors to vote on this, the people cannot do an initiative of a exact same kind of question, or so there can't be competing ordinances on the ballot by initiative.

So that's just once Council's voted by four to do it, then somebody can't start their own initiative out there that changes the language a little bit, right?

Right, right. Of course, the electors would be the one that would determine what could go on. It's in this section where it says that within that the petition must be submitted within 30 days of the passage of the ordinance that matches up with the fact that an ordinance does not take effect for 30 days. So basically within the timeframe between passage and effective date, that's when the people can organize and file the petition for the referendum. I'm just going to jump ahead to 9.2.1 for a minute. This section is not really reflected in the new language about zoning. If it's an ordinance, it can still be by referendum, but there's not a section on zoning in the new language. I'm gonna go ahead and do 9.3 and then jump back over to.

What's the reason for that? Is there just no need for it to be separate?

It's again, in my personal opinion, if changes are made by ordinance, then they are already eligible for referendum. Any other change, in zoning that would be by other legislation, such as a variance or something like that, which isn't even really by legislation, you don't want that up for the vote. So I don't know that there really should be special rules for zoning.

Do you have any? There's certain instances where Planning Commission or Board of Zoning Appeals can just make the judgment. It's not a referral to council. So I think in those, is that what you're trying to say? Is that in those cases, those shouldn't be up for referendum? Yeah. Anytime it's a referral to council, that's when it's an ordinance.

So any change to the zoning code has to occur by ordinance? So if the issue, are there others I don't know about? Okay, you just reacted a little. Okay, okay, okay. So because it's an ordinance, it's able to be referendumed, and so really it's kind of duplicative and setting up potentially a conflict, in my opinion.

I think there are times that it's more administrative in nature. of record a record plot or record a plan or something like that where it doesn't again go across council's desk. So I think they're trying to avoid that being up for debate.

I will note last year we experienced some confusion between zoning and ordinances when it came to a planned unit development. in a planned June development is passed by ordinance. So that is a circumstance where it would, it could be subject to a referendum, but because the zoning section was in there, it became a little bit diluted and murky with how it was interpreted. And there were different interpretations from that. So I agree with the law director. If this section is taken out, it would abolish that confusion.

There's also aspects on the PUDs where the first part is passed by ordinance and is clearly eligible for referendum. Other parts down the road related to that PUD are passed by legislation. And so then it becomes a question of wait a minute, if this original vote was able to be referendum, why aren't these other votes related to that PUD able to be referendumed. I don't know if those are real words. We're just gonna go with that's proper English at the moment. And so again, that section is partly what's creating that chaos when it comes to things like PUDs.

So it takes, the whole plan's been approved and now people are trying to pull parts out to, okay. That makes perfect sense, okay.

Um, I'm just, again, I'm going to go ahead and do nine three because I think doing the flow a little bit and then going to the new, um, so under the current charter provision, um, I'm going to ignore the fact they have to be uniform in size, but essentially you present your petition to the clerk of council. Um, there needs to be what's called a committee of the petitioners. and it can be no more than five. And why is that? The petition or the committee? The committee. So that there is a point person, point group that is saying we are taking this on and we are responsible for it happening. Otherwise, you very well could have five different groups bringing a set of petitions for the exact same item. And five people might be working in two of the three groups just to create some organization. Just like with other petitions, there has to be an affidavit of the circulator that they circulated the petition and got the signatures. Jumping to the new. here it says no less than three and no more than five. So we're putting a minimum number on that committee. And again, they file a proposed ordinance or the referred ordinance to the city manager. Now, I guess I should have jumped to nine four. That is fairly similar to what, We have in the original, which is a nine four. Um, it's just referring to the clerk of council, which is the city manager as opposed to just referring to the city manager. Um, we, and, and this language is a direct clarification from some confusion that happened in that incident that the city manager referred to. Um, the city will provide the petition under the new language. so that what is provided they know they can rely on. They will then obtain the appropriate number of valid signatures for the petition, which again is 15%, just like the original language, of the number of electors who voted at the last general election held for the office of governor in the municipal corporation. So we're being very specific what last election is being referred to. And then for, I'm sorry, that's for initiatives. For referendums, it would take 10%. So you're switching out that number. The logic behind that is that you want to show more buy-in from the electorate that the item being put on the ballot by the electorate is wanted by the electorate. The referendum number, can be sometimes considered to be a lower percentage because it's more the electorate saying, wait a minute, we want to review what you guys have done. Do those percentage have to be different? No. You could make them both 15%. I would not vary from the 15%. It's kind of a solid uniform number that's used for these situations. but that is one item for you all to consider is whether it should be lower for referendum than an initiative. Once the number of signatures have been acquired, then it gets filed with the Board of Elections as well as with the city manager. Um, note again that in the new language, the 30 days is for a referendum. The filing has to occur to the board of elections within the 30 days. So again, it matches that when it takes effect, they have to have the petition filed. Um, Then the Board of Elections does their review regarding the required and valid signatures and the city managers to notify the petitioners whether or not they were able to meet the standard. With that, once it's filed with the Board of Elections, it will be suspended from taking effect. So in other words, the ordinance passed will not take effect until the vote occurs. Or the Board of Elections determines the petition was insufficient, the petition is withdrawn, council can still repeal the ordinance, and then after the vote. So let's kind of stop there for a second and talk about each of those items. You may say, why would they withdraw the petition? It very well may be that there's, for lack of a better term, negotiations going on between council and the community members about what the issues are. And so council may be agreeing to take steps to amend or otherwise address what the issues are in that. Um, it very well may also be that while they've gotten the correct number of signatures, they're facing a lot of opposition from the rest of the community or they're realizing the rest of the community does not agree and agree to pull it. So there does it happen often? No, but there are times it could. and you want that avenue so that you don't have to have something go to a vote that no one wants to go to a vote. I'm going to stop there. Thoughts, questions up to that point? Or do you guys want to keep going and then do it all at once? I thought it might be helpful to just kind of break for a minute and digest.

I think this is a good pause to check in.

sir i've got a few questions on this so if that's all right with madam chair absolutely please um saving some of the other portions for later it's very well written this section and this will be a question that is now but also revisit later but Coming from the Board of Elections perspective, why do we not refer, or is there a reason not to refer to the revised code for the guidance on how to initiate and conduct both the referendums and the initiatives?

I would say the thought process is that home rule so that you're not going back and forth between the charter and the revised code. and trying to figure out what melds and doesn't meld when you're on the petitioner's committee and even for the city trying to maneuver this. I think we want it all in one location so that there isn't confusion about what is and is not required. Does this part of the charter change that type of situation?

I see. All right. The other question I had is on the petitions, who is reviewing them for sufficiency, not only as to number but to form? Because the BOE has in here the requirement to review it for sufficiency of signatures, but then in 9.3 has the requirement to also review it for just sufficiency.

I believe it's all the BOE.

So if all the BOE, then is the BOE required then to use only the charter? And if there's a conflict between the charter and the revised code at a county government level, where does the BOE fall in that decision? Because that comes up, the BOE can't certify.

The BOE can certify to the charter that it complies with the charter. That would be their job there.

It would have to be entirely in this then, so. You're asking the board not only to certify the number, but now for the sufficiency of the petitions. Correct. Even if that petition is missing something that a revised code would otherwise require.

The revised code that would not, but it would not be required here because it's not in the charter. This happens, I mean, I know where you're going. Logically, it's odd to us. Yeah, yeah. Due to the number of charter cities in the general area, This happens quite a bit where there is confusion at the BOE. Oops, we probably should have certified that because it complies with the charter or vice versa. So they are familiar with the concept. It wouldn't be new to them. But what I'm hearing from you is if we're not going to reference the ORC, that we put more detail so that they have a checklist, kind of, of what to certify against?

I think a requirement that, no offense, Kurt, the city manager's office is the one, and the council is the one that is certifying the form, the petitions, the BOE is only being asked to certify the number, would clarify that easily. Because we're already a very long article on this, longer than a lot of our, almost every single neighboring jurisdiction.

um so i would not put the city manager certifying the form you want a neutral party certifying so i would take it out of the city manager and out of the law director or anyone in vandalia certifying it i think i may have been miss miss yeah

me rephrase that you'll certify the form of the form of the petitions prior to their submitting them yes so the form is already done the form is already clear correct uh and at that point only the board of elections is certifying the number correct they technically would certify that it's correct but the form given out by the city manager should be the form is what i'm saying is i think so

Yes, we're on the same page there, yes, yes, yes. I didn't understand what you were saying, yeah. The form that is handed out by the city should have all the nuts and bolts of the form if it's going to come from the city, yes. And I think we can clarify that a little bit in here without adding length.

I have General Harper whenever we're asking the outside agency who has to buy, you know, is bound by the ORC to certify something that may be in conflict with the ORC if it's not carefully done. Understood. It will cause conflict.

And then go to a company's court?

We won't.

No, sure. Does that, do you think making it clear that The form handed out from the city manager shall comply with all aspects of the charter or something along those lines?

I'd like to personally see something up in 9-2 in the middle there, or the very first paragraph where the petition, that the forms provided by the city manager conform to the charter, but also to the ORC so that there's not a conflict there. But then also under 9-3A where it says... There's a final termination of insufficiency. Identify whether or not we're asking insufficiency of the form or insufficiency of the number of signatures, and would recommend we do only the number of signatures. That way we're not asking the BOE to also get in conflict with this city and the council to say, well, your petitions aren't valid for this other reason over here, which, by the way, will give grounds to whomever is challenging it to bring a lawsuit. But if it's simply the number of signatures, that's a straightforward direct ask.

We're obviously going to look at this again next week or two weeks from now. So let me play with it a little bit. Let me talk to the city manager a little bit because I know there have been some issues in this community in the past. And so I want to make sure I fully understand what those were so that we don't have that problem.

Thank you. Sorry to take up that much time.

Anything else kind of up through 9-3? I feel like we need a dry erase board to map everything out. um okay so over in the picking up from nine five um in the old language at the next meeting and this is part of the reason why the old language is confusing we're back on initiative in the middle of what had been kind of about referendums but about both but um If there is an initiative, council is to consider it within 30 days. There can be public hearings. They can reject the ordinance or pass it in a different form. And then that committee of petitioners can be required to, can be asked whether or not a modified Ordinance that was passed by Council should be put on the ballot Nine six if there is a referendum the ordinance does not take effect and Then nine seven addresses essentially What's on the ballot? The vote is either for the ordinance or against the ordinance and And then we have the election results. So going back to the new language, if a petition has been deemed sufficient by the board of elections, um, council is to determine whether or not all of the requirements under the law and the charter have been met. And if those requirements have not met the petitioners committee has 21 days to resolve the deficiencies or cure the deficiencies, presuming they are curable.

So does that 30-day window, the 30-day window, then they have 21 days, like those kind of stack on top of each other, right?

Yes, yes. Now, if let's say the petitioner committee steams right through and gets what they think are the number of signatures within 14 days. It's not like you're waiting till we get to 30 days to continue. So they stack, but they also run consecutive. Okay. If they are cured, then council is to acknowledge the validity of the petition and file that within the Board of Elections. At that point then, council is to take the appropriate action to place the measure on the ballot. B just makes it very clear that council at any time can reconsider its prior actions and either modify or repeal the ordinance that's been brought up for referendum. If the council passes a proposed ordinance, and so this would be a referendum, or I'm sorry, an initiative issue, without changes in substance, which the petitioner committee essentially is their sounding board on the initiative. So if the petitioner's committee presents something and council says, great idea but what about this would work better and the petitioners committee agrees then council can proceed with passing that um amended ordinance or yeah amended initiative it can also repeal the referred ordinance after notice um if they i apologize if they take either of those actions then a notice of withdrawal is filed with the board of elections essentially So if council takes care of the initiative by passing something or repealing the referendum item, then it gets taken off the ballot. They also can take such action as to simply just place it on the ballot. And then it takes a resolution to file the notice of withdrawal or the acknowledgement of validity. The reason it takes a resolution is if it was an ordinance, that ordinance would be open to referendum. So you could get into a cycle of referendums on one issue. So that's why it's very clear that that step is by resolution. It's then held at the next regular municipal election, which can't be more than or less than 75 days or more than a year later. And council can request a special election in order to comply with that section. It can, an initiative or referendum may be withdrawn prior to the fifth day preceding the day scheduled for the election. And at that point, it shall have no further force in effect, essentially. So, let's break those two down just slightly. To me, that timeframe for the vote makes sense. just because if we're an off-year cycle or something like that, there aren't a lot of election dates necessarily held in the state of Ohio. So it attempts to avoid having to have a special election. It also avoids something being passed right before an election that's already scheduled and people scrambling to try and get it on without the electorate really being aware it's on the ballot. So I think the timeframe makes logical sense, even though it seems kind of a long time to go before a vote on a initiative or a referendum. The withdrawal of the petition, um, I believe, and I did not check this, even if it's withdrawn, I believe the city would still have to share in its cost or its portion of the cost for that ballot item, even if it's withdrawn. So the side of me that says, hey, getting it off the ballot as much as possible is great. Five days may seem a little short to me or close to the election to me because if I'm correct, the city's going to bear the cost. It's let's say there's five other things on the ballot. It's one sixth cost of holding that election. And if it's a special election, they're bearing the whole cost of that special election and you've withdrawn something five days before. So I view that as a potential for creating confusion. That said, I do not know or have an idea what would be a better timeframe. I just see that as being a, potentially concerning issue that could lead to other concerns type of thing.

What's the significance? Why five days out? Did that just count out with the 21 and 14 days?

That's what I don't know where the five came from. Um, Clayton, Clayton Reunion, whichever one this comes from, one of those over there. That's just how, that was the timeframe they had in there, and I left it since we were using it as the model.

But in order to avoid the cost, isn't it like more than 30 days prior?

Mm-hmm.

So if anything's run in late, Late's late, right? Yeah. Ten days, five days, doesn't matter.

Yeah. I mean, you'd either have to make it a significantly long to take it off the ballot prior to the election, or you're kind of stuck with this issue. Yeah. And at that point, if you're kind of stuck with the issue, I get the five days. You're close, but... you're off. So it's that.

I feel like it'd have to be 60 days if you were going to try to avoid the cost because there would be like mail-in, you know, there's a huge lead-in time for the ballot.

Seven days. I want to confirm that, but seven days for the Secretary of State to certify the ballots at the boards of elections. We have to have everything done well before then.

Yeah. So probably the five is... Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. Um, just some general provisions and I'm just going with the new at this point. Um, there should be notice of the initiative or referendum as required by the charter. So that publication on the website, the social media, presuming that gets adopted and the two public buildings. Emergency ordinances cannot be used to repeal or amend an ordinance enacted by initiative or reenact an ordinance that has been repealed by referendum. So there's no getting around what happened. They can use a non-emergency ordinance to repeal or amend an ordinance enacted by initiative, but it takes five council members, not the normal four. And again, they can reenact something that was repealed by referendum with a vote of five. If the County Board of Elections does not take any function as requested, then the clerk of council may do so. Um, And then 9-6 essentially says if the charter's silent, it goes back to the Ohio revised code or the Ohio election laws. Creates a confusion. If, but again, goal is not to.

Could do with Kettering and tips that are doing to say go to the RC.

You could, yeah.

So how often has this, or has it ever, occurred? I find it amazing that we have, oh, five of you can undo what your electorate just voted in. I was just going to say that. It seems like a giant waste of time, a giant waste of money, and a good way to get yourself unelected next round. But why would we do that if three-quarters of Vandalia, just because the council doesn't like it, if the voters like it, it's kind of what you're up in this seat for.

I'm going to say exactly what you just said. Because if they, you can't, you have to have, just because the voters voted a law in does not mean that it can't be, it's not then written in stone never to be adjusted again. so there's got to be a way that it's undone um i'm going to be kind of flip or sarcastic with my example um you could have the electorate put an initiative that would violate federal housing law council's got to do something to undo it because that could affect their the grants that the city receives things like that Um, that's the, I, you know, the dramatic example. Um, but exactly what you said would, you know, theoretically, if the city felt strongly about whatever was passed by initiative and council repealed it, then the public can recall the public can take reference or, um, take action at the next election. To answer your question about how many times has initiative or referendums ever been done, I do not recall in my adult life Tip City ever having one. I do not recall in my entire life, I just wasn't paying as much attention, Tip City ever having one. There's a vague memory of discussion of one, but I don't recall on Tip, and I don't think of any, I don't have a good feel for Vandalia, but I'm not aware of Anything in Vandalia?

I think when we looked last year, historically, the last one was in 2002, if I'm recalling correctly. Last initiative?

I know that. don't know exactly the date but when i checked in our record archive and what is on our retention schedule we did not have it because you're only supposed to keep it for five years so there were but i had to do some digging but i think that's approximately the date the year

So it's rare. This is one of those areas that there's a lot sometimes of we're going to do it, but then that's part of the reason for the petition committee is who's going to take the lead, who's going to do it. And so it kind of fizzles out over time.

Because this section caused me a lot of heartburn as well for the same reason. what if we did what some other cities have done and put in there that the issue cannot be revisited for, say, two years, for example.

And that would be, yeah.

But then we could also, to preserve the intent and the will of the voters, but then at the same time, to make sure that we don't violate a superseding law of some sort, we put in there that that two-year restriction would be waived

It matters where the public health, the public power.

It matters that cause conflict for a direct conflict to state or federal law. So if we change the law by voters and they said something that clearly violates housing law, federal housing law, it's absolutely discriminatory in every sense of the word. Well, council can then come in and say, OK, this should not have passed. I don't know what everyone was thinking. We'll be subject to recall later on, but we need to do something so we don't violate federal law. In that case, we could put in quick language to waive that restricted period.

I think that makes sense.

Yeah.

But shouldn't something that extreme have been stopped by the BOE? Nope. No. Really? Even in the conflicts with federal law?

The BOE does not judge what is put on the ballot. They just judge whether or not it's qualified.

Got signatures and backing. The sufficiency of the petitions. Got you.

Got you.

And I suppose as I asked the question and started thinking about it, it could be five years down the line that council wants to because something's changed in the world. But yeah, maybe you put a year or two year hold on it.

We find out it didn't work, and instead of having everyone to go through the whole process again, OK. And we have to live with consequences over votes for a couple of years.

Since you did some research, was it normally two? Because I would have gone with one.

I mean, there are different ones, but two seem to be the one that was... Kind of consistent. In the middle of council term also didn't put you in the middle of an election year for a general election that would cause other problems if that resolution itself were then... If that were then challenged, how would we go back and do that? So you're not calling for a special election in a general gubernatorial presidential year.

I mean, the math makes sense. From a... whatever perspective I have at the moment, I would have probably said one. But again, I get the math part. By the way, my goal with this tonight was to work our way through, have a lot of conversation about it, and then be given direction on those kind of things. to talk about it next week, two weeks as well. And recognizing this is probably going to come up a third, like take two or three of these meetings to really nail down what Vandalia should look like.

Is the language that's in section nine five of the proposed red letter Is that common in other city charters or just Clayton's?

Yeah. So the initiative and referendum sections really vary on the level of detail. Um, I do not recall seeing it in the other ones that I looked at, but this is definitely, um, more detailed in the other sections. than a lot of them are. I hope that made sense.

Where did you pull this from?

Clayton. Or Union. Clayton. It's Clayton, thank you. Or as I think of it, one of those two over there. So let me ask this. Having heard the conversation, I think I know the direction you're thinking. There are also some things that have raised in my mind based on your conversations that could be cleaned up a little bit as well. Or at least I need to think about cleaning up a little bit as well. Do you think we're at the point for me to just make those revisions to present it the next time, or do you think there's other discussion?

I'm good with that plan. Others? I'm good with that plan. Does everybody else have any other commentary?

So you'd send us a new version out and then we could add our comments back in. Yeah, I need to digest a little more.

Yeah, and this is exactly, originally we were going to do this last just because it's a lot and then I realized we're going to need two or three meetings to really handle this. Okay. That takes us to, starting on september 5th 5th 10th um items which were pretty straightforward and i do apologize again about getting them out to you late last night but they're not meaty they're kind of straightforward so um and again we can talk about them next time as well The first one is Article 5, 5-1, the appointment and qualifications for the city manager. This one, apparently I forgot to take out the word removal, essentially just clarifying that his appointment is until he's removed pursuant to the charter requirements or resigns. And the word removal should be marked out before removed. That was just a grammatical change I was making.

I don't think we let him resign.

It's really interesting looking at surrounding charters, how detailed this can get. I would say this is one that, to me, being clear but not specific makes a lot more sense. Are we OK with that one? The next one on salary of the city manager is just to make it clear that that's a resolution, not an ordinance. It's currently required to be an ordinance.

We're striking the word ordinance.

We are. What happened to my strikeouts? The additions got added, but not the... Okay, next is removal of the city manager. Again, this is one where I'm looking for feedback as to how we may want to proceed. So, council can take action to remove the city manager. 30 days prior to that, they are to notify the city manager of their intent, state the cause, immediately suspend him or her, and then appoint someone to take on those duties. After that notice, the city manager may request an appearance, and they should grant that request within two weeks after it's received. After full consideration, council may declare the city manager removed. Action resulting in suspension or removal shall be by resolution requiring five members vote. And it's final. It's not, the structure's there, or I should say there is a structure there. However, when you look at Union and TIP, again, there's just a lot more, clarity over certain things. So in union, it breaks it out between a probation period, or I'm calling it a probation period of six months, and after that. If it's after six months, the manager may demand written charges and the right to be heard at a public meeting, and then counsel may suspend the manager during that period. It is clear that it is the intention of the city that the charter vests all authority in the council as far as the removal. So not necessarily a lot more detail than what Vandalia has, but just very straight and to the point. Um, tip as we have seen in many of their provisions, um, lays out a very specific, you've got a preliminary ordinance, um, which states the reasons for removal. So it's all public action, public record, um, which may suspend the municipal manager. Then five days after that, the manager may file a written request for the public hearing, which then is held within 15 to 30 days later. Council then may adopt a final ordinance of removal which is again majority plus one and again it's clear that someone is appointed to fulfill their duties. Really the question in some ways is You know, TIP has the structure of it's very clear there is a vote, there is a suspension, there is the right to be heard, there is a second vote. The way Vandalia's is currently written, It says, should removal become necessary, council 30 days before the effective date will notify the manager of such intent. It's not clear how, if they've taken a vote, is that a public action? Is it we think this may be the case, so hey, we're giving you 30 days notice? That's where it becomes a little vague. Now, I who like rules and like checklists like the two-vote situation. What TIPS doesn't have is it doesn't have the nimbleness when there is a dramatic emergency type of situation happening, i.e. stealing from the city or something. but you call a special meeting, you take a vote. So there is nimbleness in there. If there is something like that, you just have to wait 24 hours.

Let me ask a question on this, because I do, unlike you, I like to vote, but I also remarked that when conduct is, like stealing from the city, there should be a way to take care of it immediately. But if that's the case, we have, and his or her salary for two months. If you're stealing from the city, I still have to pay you for two months? I'm used to at will, and they can remove me tomorrow, right?

Yeah, so theoretically, using my dramatic stealing from the city, that would probably be something that would be addressed, but again, it's not necessarily going to be two months because if you have a special meeting 24 hours later, you're looking at 30 days at most that the person would still be employed. So we're not necessarily bound by any of the language and tips or that concept if we didn't want to go that way. So we can pick and choose. Did that address your question?

I think so. I just, I just think we shouldn't write into law. I mean, we've had people removed fairly quickly and I'd hate for in law for us to be paying somebody additional salary when they didn't work out within a 90 day period or within six months even.

I forgot that the two months was in ours. Yeah. No, I agree with you on that.

We really have that in there because it kind of points to I got to pay no matter what happens.

One of the things that we would want the charter to be specific enough yet vague enough that there could be a suspension without pay. But we also in... We don't want it so vague that you also have, because as I tell clients, when you're writing an operating agreement, you're not writing for your current relationship. You're writing for the relationship down the road. We also want to write it there where there is some protection for the city manager from a, not aggressive, a, what's that word? It starts with an A. Vindictive. That works too. Vindictive counsel. Yeah. So we want flexibility for the city, but we also want protections for the city manager.

And we want to be able to hire the next one.

Yes.

Yeah.

What about a suspension with pay until the hearing? It's almost like a probable cause fine.

I think at that point, it's not necessarily the hearing. It would be whatever that final action is. And I think instead of saying with pay, with or without pay, so that, again, council's not forced to pay somebody who's stealing from the city.

I like the way Tip works it out, I think. It works out with the notices, the requirements. It protects both the council and the city manager. Neither one's going to get a windfall. If he or she's stealing from the city, the charges are going to get the money back as well. So I like the way they've done it.

More of an overarching question. You kind of pointed out early on that our current charter is very vague in every section, and some of these others, i.e. Tip City, is very descriptive. If we start putting in some of these more descriptive sections, does that start to Do we need to do that for all of the sections to be more cohesive, or is that okay that we kind of have it pieced out? Do you see what I'm saying?

I think the sections where we are getting more detailed are ones that require more detail.

That's fair.

And kind of stand out. That said, it could be putting the charter on a path that when this is done again in five years, it keeps going in that more detailed direction.

Got it. then yes, I agree. The version is good.

I see what you're saying. We don't want a hamstring council with here's everything and you're just formulaically doing the jobs up here.

Yeah, and I guess just cohesiveness of the document of you know, some sections are one sentence, others now we're adding A, Bs and Cs to every, you know, which we don't currently have. I think this is very valid. I just, from a big picture standpoint, wanna make sure that by using neighboring communities' language that we're not creating a bigger issue, I guess.

And you'll see, like, in the referendum one, I didn't know how to structure part of it because the structure didn't fit within the Vandalia structure, so I've got some work to do on that. I think for this situation where it's essentially creating the due process for both sides, it makes sense. I don't have to necessarily structure it with the A, B, C, and D. That's a lawyer thing.

I think it's a clarity thing. I personally think it's very nice and neat and clear. And so, you know, when you do read our sections, it's all one paragraph and it kind of gets jumbled together and you have to kind of really think through what they're saying, whereas this is very clear what the intention is. I'm not in disagreement.

I very much like this personally. Yeah, so it's one of those things where I could actually take what we talk about smash it into one paragraph, and it will look like the rest of Vandalia's, and it'd be the same impression of vagueness in some situations. So that's why I don't think we're necessarily making it inconsistent. It's just part of how it's also presented.

Yeah, no, I think you actually certainly need more detail, because we have had situations that the lack of detail has left Vandalia in a precarious situation. And so I do think this is important. I just want to make sure big picture that we're not piecing together and now our document is not where it starts.

Yes, I know exactly where you're going, yes.

Are there sections we should go back and look at separating paragraphs to?

That would still require a ballot initiative, so if we're not making substantive changes, we don't want to mess with the section.

Okay.

Because Brookville hadn't done it in how long? Fifteen. Fifteen-plus years, and I think they had 50-some.

Yeah, there were a lot.

Charter recommendations to council, which obviously... I would think Brookville's council is not going to put 50 on the ballot all at once. So we don't want to necessarily, if we're making a substantive change, yes, we can do that. If we're not, we just want to leave alone.

We do still have the A, Bs, and Cs, so that's not outlandish that we're adding that in. I just, devil's advocate, just want to make sure we're considering that.

So what I'm hearing, correct me if I'm wrong, use tips as the guidelines and go from there, okay? Next is, I don't think we're getting September 10th off, everybody, we're just gonna move up other ones that we were gonna consider. The Planning Commission, and actually, we might as well look at 7-1 and 7-4 together. because they're similar situations. Right now, both the Planning Commission and the BZA have a rollover problem. Right now, four of the five Planning Commission seats are full. There is a vacancy. All four roll off at the same time. There is no staggered seat right now at the Planning Commission. The BZA is a little bit better. There is a vacant seat, three roll off simultaneously as required by the charter, and then there's one lone person and then the vacant seat. So I didn't want to go into a lot of detail because that would have become very convoluted and complicated to fix the planning commission immediately after passing the charter. So my solution was to say, okay, going forward, There will be five planning commission members. I do have some cleanup language that I noticed a bit that I'll tell you about in a minute, but there'll be five members appointed by council and they will be serving three year staggered terms. And then at the end, I just said to create the staggered terms, council may appoint members for a term of less than three years. So that way, While it's not ideal that we're dealing with this in 28, is that when you guys roll off? In 28. In 28, they can deal with, okay, this person's getting appointed for one year, this person's getting appointed for two years, as opposed to trying to lay out how that was going to work now. Because we theoretically could have two vacant seats at that time. Hopefully not, but that's always a possibility. So it also avoided having to go have conversations with current commission members or BZA members saying, do you mind if we cut your term? We hope you come back, but can we cut your term type of thing? So I thought that was the better way to address that. The correction I needed to point out was I think we needed to... make it clear that the and between council and the city manager is not about the appointment, but the fact that the city manager is the ex officio member of the planning commission. So I think the easiest fix to that is either to list the city manager first to say there shall be a planning commission with the city manager as an ex officio member and

five electors appointed by council or just make that a separate sentence so that's an easy fix but wanted to bring that to your attention i have a question as the deputy clerk of council who sends the um bca and planning commission members that are coming off their their terms are expiring how is that going to work then as far as staggering the terms is that set by council then yes so

So what would happen is at that point, I'm just, Planning Commission's the easiest one to use since they all roll off together. There would be a notice essentially of your term is expiring. Council will have already figured out what the staggered terms would look like, and then we theoretically would ask them, are you open to filling one of these seats? I would expect there would be an explanation at a meeting prior to that to explain what is going on and why as well.

So typically these members are then voted in at the June meeting because the 30th is when, June is when all their terms expire. So we're saying maybe like the May meeting, there's a study session and then that's when council determined, does it have to be done by legislature?

No, so what would happen, this isn't going to just be in one situation. There would be sitting down, like we would present to council what the seats are I would expect that much like now you would advertise there is a seat for one year, there's a seat for two years, there's a seat for three years, and the public could again apply for whatever seat they would want to do in addition to those currently on it.

And that's for like the vacancies?

Mm-hmm.

Okay, gotcha. Thank you.

Like, for the vacancy that's there now, if you've got an applicant for that vacant seat now, um, theoretically council could go ahead in order to help start that because otherwise we'd have five, um, rolling off simultaneously. Um, go ahead and make that a one year appointment.

No, does this leaves that ability to stagger those terms if, 10 years down the road, four of them leave town altogether. They move away. You now have to restart your staff.

You don't have to restart the staggering because it's now clear that they're filling a vacant vacant, that the vacancy is to fill the term as opposed to starting a new three year term. I think that's how that it got off was, um, they, either people left at once or it was just one of those things of when people started they just started a Three-year term as opposed to filling a vacancy That said City manager and Miss Schwartz if as you think about this you think it's a logistical issue nightmare, let me know and we'll figure it out. A better way of doing it too.

No, I don't think so. As long as it's clear to council that that's, you know, we're staggering the terms one to two to three years and then how we are identifying the current members that if they want to seek reappointment, which ones are going to take the one to two to three?

I think we can make it. I think so, yes. Yeah. So that's, Oh yeah. Nominations. This is an interesting one when you start looking at it. So this is about what the number of signatures it takes to get on the ballot for council or mayor. Um, currently we have 75 as the requirement. You'll notice that was adopted in 2015. I do not know what it was before. Um, The question was raised. Do you remember what the percentage was? Okay. The question was raised. I do not know where the question raised came from about whether or not 75 should be higher. So in just looking at Communities around us tip only requires 25 I thought unions was interesting in the fact that they have a different number for mayor than they do counsel But 50 seems to be Pretty consistent Of a number so Vandalia is already higher again. This is one of those where really doesn't matter what the surrounding communities do. It's just whatever Vandalia wants to do. I was just using it as a mile marker for people. I have no real thoughts on this. I would say my one thought that I think is a little odd is that if an elector signs more than the maximum petitions, his or her signature shall be void except for the ones filed first. My perspective is if someone wants to run and they ask me to sign the petition, I'm going to sign it because if they think they should run and would do a good job, they should be on the ballot and let the people decide. That's how I was raised. that's not necessarily the view of everyone else, but you're putting on the, going back to Mr. Blaine's thought, you're putting a kind of an onus on the Board of Elections to count, oh, we've seen that signature twice previously.

We had that issue happen, I think it was City of Dayton, and it wasn't clear which one was filed first or signed first, and the city had to go back and redo, and it was a nightmare, to say the least.

So I would suggest taking... that language out.

What does it serve? Does it stop anything? Like if there's three seats open and I sign four of them, that just means I want the choice of all four of them when I go to vote. So does it serve anything that you're aware of or you're aware of?

To me, what it does is it essentially says that you as an elector, there are three seats. So theoretically, you should only be supporting three people. It makes the concept that if you sign a petition, you are supporting that person for election. That's not how I personally view petitions. That's not how a lot of people view petitions. It's more about, hey, can you get the signatures to get on the ballot? There are a lot of people, though, that will not sign a petition if they're not planning to vote for them. So that's where that, that clearly comes from that mindset.

There's no purpose. I mean, it's, it's a race to the, um, the BOE at that point. And it's, it's almost impossible to say, you know, Eric signed, you know, four petitions, but which four filed first and three, five. Yeah, I agree. Please remove it.

That's my, I would vote to take that out. Okay.

I think 75 is fine. I don't know that we need to lower it. I think 75 is easily attainable. I don't know if we need to increase it though.

It takes some work to get 75 signatures. It does. It's not easy.

It's not. And usually for the purposes we're talking about, you get way more than that. I mean, we've had very healthy elections with a lot of people that have come to the table and put their name in the ring, and they have gotten the required signatures. So I think 75 is fair. I wouldn't lower it, but I also don't know that we need to increase. I don't know where that question came from, especially seeing the benchmarking from the other communities.

I would say the 75 also forces you as a voter to know that that person talked to other people in the community because before you sign it you're going what why do you want to run what are you standing for it's a few more people that heard their voice so when it came to Election Day they're slightly more educated than the postcard that went out So yeah, 75, I've never gone to try and canvass 75 signatures in Vandalia, but if it's not killer, then why change that? I would change the, you can't sign more than, because I'm not counting. If somebody asked me and I think they'd be good, I'm not counting.

Well, yeah, if somebody files later, but you already signed your three, but you really like number four, and now you can't support them, that seems... And practically speaking, they're getting more than 75 signatures.

My guess is they're probably aiming for 100 to 125.

I think the general rule is three. Do we want to put in there something like the caps, how many they can submit?

Oh, is that why this is 50 to 100 signatures? So the union is capped. You have to have 50, but don't get any more than 100. Is that why that says 50 to 100 signatures?

My guess is that's there because of the whole situation that a lot of times using Butler Township and Vandalia, someone may not realize that they're a Butler Township resident, not a Vandalia resident. And so they've signed the petition. Their vote doesn't, or their ballot doesn't, their signature doesn't count towards the petition. So the range is probably just, hey, if you've gotten 55, but five of yours gets knocked off, you're fine. If you've gotten a hundred and five of yours get knocked off, you're fine. So I don't know that it's actually a cap. I think they're just saying the petition has to have that number of valid signatures.

The state law does have that requirement on there. You must have X amount, but not more than three times X amount submitted.

And it's pretty standard. I think school board is the same thing. 75. Okay.

So 75 leave, but take out the maximum number you can sign. Okay. That is all for the evening. Um, I will circulate an updated referendum and initiative separately from the next packet just so you can continue to consider research. If you, as you are researching, any thoughts, not that you have to, but if you want to read other charters, and you have an idea, please feel free to call me and let me know. And I can work that in or put it in notes for the next meeting as well.

Thank you, everyone, for your time tonight. I will accept a motion for adjournment if there's no other comments.

So moved. Second.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? We are adjourned at 7.02.