June 19, 2008
Charter Review Commission Meeting
Agenda
I. Presentation on Council size by Council President Martin J. Sweeney
II. Continued review of proposed charter change recommendations.
III. Recap and discussion of 6-18-08 public hearing at Tri-C
Charter Review Commission Meeting
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:45 AM and mentioned that the City Council President Martin J. Sweeney would be coming in at approximately 9:15 AM to speak to the commission members about council rightsizing. Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that there would also be a debriefing on the public hearing that took place last night (Wednesday, June 17th) at Cuyahoga Community College Metropolitan Campus if time permits. Richard Horvath began to present his review of the other recommendation proposals to the charter.
The mandatory referral proposal was covered and there were the council revisions that Horvath had covered as well. In regards to the council revisions records of the Council are to be kept in electronic form and available in printed form to the public upon request. Greg Huth mentioned that there should be revised language in this section, which should state “addressed to the clerk.” Horvath noted this recommendation and will make the recommended language change.
Ken Johnson raised the question if every council document should be kept on file. It was mentioned that the electronic file would be kept and maintained by the Clerk of City Council.
The future of the charter review commission was discussed next. The central question raised was in regards to the time frame on when the charter should be reviewed. The question was raised if the charter should be reviewed every 20 years, 10 years, etc. How long should it take the council to review the recommendations made by the Charter Commission was another question that was raised. Presently there is a 30 day time frame to conduct such as review. There was a question raised as to whether this timeframe should be revised to a longer period of time.
City Council residency requirement was brought up and is a very challenging position to write in regards to living in a ward for 12 months before filing a petition to run for office. Richard Horvath mentioned that the councilmatic wards will be redistricted in 2011 and it is possible that there will be fewer wards. Ward realignment issues could also come up and there is a possibility that the councilperson could be forced to move from their present place of residence into the newly realigned ward since the boundaries will have changed.
Ken Johnson mentioned that he is in support of the residency requirement and there should be no exceptions. Horvath mentioned that there are consequences that Council would have to think about if this recommendation were to be taken.
Horvath cautioned that the Council have to be careful in making such ward boundary adjustments because the rules are fixed well ahead of an election. Roosevelt Coats mentioned that normally if the individual does not live in the ward they usually do not succeed in winning election. Coats also suggested that we need to look at what other cities are doing. Coats also mentioned that there are provisions for newly hired city employees living outside municipal boundaries who must move into the city 6 months after they are hired. This is something that could be crafted for Council, but we do need to look at other cities to determine if they have any special provisions in regards to ward realignment and councilmatic boundary changes.
Bill Callahan mentioned about incumbency issues, and Ken Johnson mentioned about the public office language which the council member cannot hold any other public ofiice or position if running for office.
The Department of Port Control was brought up in the discussion and the ARFF unit proposal was covered and Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that the union for the ARFF employees has submitted to the commission their comments about the administration’s proposal.
Richard Horvath mentioned that the various sub-committees were still working on the charter proposals and these recommendations could be incorporated but there will be a time when all of these proposals will have to be covered thoroughly by the commission. The document that Horvath is working on pertaining to the charter proposals will be revised and a document will be given to the commission members to review and to make a vote on this.
CARE requested that an emergency medical care course be offered.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned about having additional meetings in order to go through the rest of the recommendations, which is something that we may need to do. Greg Huth suggested that perhaps the additional meetings could be scheduled during the evening, which could provide residents an opportunity to attend these sessions to see the Commission review the charter recommendations.
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that we should better advertise our proposal deadlines for charter amendment proposals and set a date on when proposals should be sent in. Coats also mentioned that some people may feel that the process is exclusive and non-inclusive. Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that we may need to let people know in regards to what the deadline date is. Richard Horvath mentioned that you may want to have a deadline for organizational purposes. Greg Huth agrees with a deadline date and would like to set a deadline for all public comments. Ken Johnson mentioned that people should be allowed to submit recommendations during this process in order to make it more inclusive, and they should be given the right to weigh in on the process. Roosevelt Coats mentioned that it must be made clear that the deadline is for the charter committee and the announcement must be made to the public right away so more people will have a chance to be informed. Vickie Johnson also mentioned that if the CDC organizations and other agencies can place this in the newsletters this could be a fair attempt to reach the people. Coats believe that the process needs to begin today and should be telecast on the public channels.
Deadline is set for July 15th for accepting proposals from the public. Greg Huth made the first motion to approve the deadline date of July 15th. All yeas – 12 votes unanimous.
Any proposal received after that date would be given to City Council as a body.
Cleveland City Council President Martin J. Sweeney came to table to talk about the rightsizing of Council. Sweeney mentioned the July 31st date on when the charter commission recommendations would be made, and the fact that the Council meeting is on August 6th, would not provide enough time to review the proposal and make a decision, but in all likelihood the Council may have a special meeting to vote on the recommendations and determine which items will be on the ballot.
Sweeney then discussed his proposal for the rightsizing of City Council and presented that the size of council should be structured to a ration of 25,000 residents to one council member. Sweeney mentioned that it is important to maintain a ward based system, which is vital to the city of Cleveland. Sweeney also mentioned that it is important to have a council member who knows the community that they represent.
The lost of population in the city is something that needs to be addressed.
Why is this index being recommended was a question raised by commission members? We wanted to have accountability and accessibility of the council person according to Sweeney. A Ward based system and a ratio of one to 25,000 is the way to go.
Colleen Gilson commented if this ratio is consistent with past representation. Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the index makes sense and be applied over the long term. Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that the undercounting of individuals in the last U.S. census has been a problem and if there is some way to address this, we need to do so. Sweeney mentioned that in the last census, both the administration and city council felt that the population figures were undercounted and tried to make efforts on having a recount done. Looking at doing population estimates which would be the way to go in regards to looking at the city’s population.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that we need to find a way to address the undercounting issue and look at another way to deal with the disparity.
Ken Johnson asked where we get the indexing from if the population index approach is to be used. Robert Triozzi mentioned that the number of representatives is set by state in regards to population in certain geographic areas.
Ken Johnson mentioned that the U.S. census is done every ten years, and how do we overcome the undercounting in the city. Cleveland mentioned that the Council Consultant is compiling population figures and should be providing something to the Commission in the near future. Sweeney mentioned that the indexing is very important and the ward based system is very important in order to ensure good representation. We need to keep it, because it is beneficial to the residents and to move away from this would prove disastrous to the residents in the city of Cleveland.
Callahan raised question why is it important to change at all. Sweeney mentioned about the 1 to 25,000 ratio, which is preferable and believes that we should do this now. Sweeney also mentioned that the City Council do get things accomplished. Sweeney also believes that an at large Councilmatic system would not work and lacks the accountability that citizens want to see. The other reason is to keep neighborhoods cohesive. Richard Horvath mentioned about even number and rounding in regards to city population figures and the number of City Council members. Sweeney mentioned that if the number is odd you would stop at the odd number. For example 17.99 would be 17 and if it is 18.00 it would be 19.
Chairperson Cleveland raised the question about the drafting of the Council rightsizing proposal and Sweeney mentioned that a written proposal will be submitted. Colleen Gilson mentioned that for consistency sake that the proposal be given to Richard Horvath so he can incorporate it in the same format as the other proposals.
Ken Johnson mentioned how some former area congressional representatives told him when there were 33 council people there were half of the problems in the city of Cleveland compared to what we are facing now. Johnson felt that we should have done population indexing a long time ago because if we did, there would not exists the same problems today.
Greg Huth commented that it is hard to understand how this is going to work especially if the census changes every 10 years and you have to take into consideration the local elections as well.
Sweeney mentioned that whatever the population number is, it will be divided by 25,000 that will determine the number of council members.
Horvath mentioned that in changing election deadlines it almost means that you cannot reapportion in the same years as an election. Look at companion piece that you reapportion for the following election after the present election season.
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the census bureau does the census every ten years and performs an estimated count every five years. Robert Triozzi mentioned that he would like to hear from Consultant James Dykes in regards to the census count and what are the valid population counts that are out there.
Pat Mangan agrees with the following election cycle in regards to putting this into effect.
Ken Johnson mentioned that the last time this was done in regards to adjusting the boundaries it took 60 days. The Census Bureau makes the population adjustment and this is something that the commission could speak to James Dykes about.
Sweeney mentioned that there is a debate to do this rightsizing of Council in 2009 or 2013. Sweeney feels that 2009 makes more sense, because this is our current population in the city, let’s get it done and move forward.
Ken Johnson mentioned if you wait until 2009 all you would need to do is to tinker with it as opposed to 2013. This would be done based on the population estimates or could be done every ten years.
Sweeney is proposing to use estimated numbers and every ten years you must use the census data in order to make the adjustments.
Kelley believes that by doing this in 2009 it provides the opportunity to make adjustments when they need to be made.
There will be a debate in the council over this issue. Sweeney mentioned about looking at what will be put on ballot in regards to charter recommendations and in light of the fall presidential election and statewide initiatives that will be on the ballot we could see a very large turnout, which could influence an election. Sweeney cautioned that with so many issues on the fall ballot, voters may have so many other issues to think about and the charter amendments might not get the same kind of attention that it deserves. Chairperson Cleveland mentioned about how the Charter Commission will prioritize each of the recommendations made and will place special emphasis on what should be placed on the ballot.
Cleveland thanked people who attended the public meeting at Tri-C adjourned meeting at 10:40 AM