Charter Review Commission
February 14, 2008
Agenda

1) Distribution of Roberts Rules of Order and updated contact information
2) Setting of an agenda
     a. Presentation by John James
     b. Broad overview agenda for next 6 months
     c. Focused agenda for next 2 weeks
     d. Consideration of public input – suggestions
3) Discussion on possible sub-committees
4) Discussion on possible consultants
5) Discussion on possible web presence

Thursday, February 14, 2008
Charter Commission Review
Meeting Minutes

Meeting started at 8:40 AM, Chairperson Cleveland called the meeting to order.

Cleveland informed the Committee that Jane Platten of the Board of Elections will be here next Thursday along with a staff person to speak to the Committee about their proposal.

Chairperson Cleveland did the roll call and everyone was present with the exception of Greg Huth, Kevin Kelley who was attending a business meeting.

City Council Public Relations Manager Katherine Samsa provided information on Robert’s Rules of Order to the Committee members.

A fact sheet on Roberts Rules of Order was distributed to the Commission by Katherine Samsa.

John James provided a proposed draft project agenda timeline 90 day work plan for the Charter Review Commission to review and make comment on during the meeting. Mr. James provided an overview on the proposed plan and then it was placed before the Commission for discussion.

Comments that were made regarding the proposed work-plan for the Charter Commission review were as follows:

The use of sub-committees could be beneficial because it could allow each committee to bring various proposals relating to the Charter to the larger group to review and consider.

Councilman Ken Johnson does not favor the idea of having sub-committees because he believes that the work should be driven by the Charter Review Commission since it is their charge to review the charter. There was a question raised as to whether the Charter Review Commission as one entity should study the charter and make proposals for revision or if should this be done by a sub-committee?

Councilman Roosevelt Coats mentioned that there should be other eyes looking at the issues that are being raised regarding revising the charter. The Charter Review Commission cannot thoroughly examine all of the issues that are out there and additional resources are needed. We need to look at task orientation and a charter member could serve as a liaison to a sub-committee. The sub-committee could incorporate other people into the process of reviewing the charter who may have tangible skills in specific areas that could benefit the Charter Review Commission. Coats also mentioned that the Commission’s time frame made it difficult for issues to be thoroughly examined without dividing them out for outside work of some sort, to which Cleveland concurred.

Sister Alicia Alvarado mentioned that there is much information that is in the charter. Sister Alvarado supports the sub-committee concept because it provides citizens the opportunity to provide input into the process of charter review.

Bill Callahan added that we need to look at sub-committees being comprised of people outside of the Charter Review Commission who can bring proposals to the Charter Review Commission meetings and present their proposals along with findings. The Charter Review Commission can also look towards the sub-committee to examine particular issues that pertain to the charter. Callahan also suggested that there should be three separate parts to a timeline: (1) informing interested parties of topics being discussed (publicize and allow for public input); (2) bringing in outside individuals, possibly sub-committees to present to the Commission; (3) processing the information and making a proposal.

Chairwoman Cleveland suggested that, should there be sub-committees, a Commission member would need to chair each of them.

Collen Gilson commented that there are people who work on these issues every day, especially in their line of work in city hall (administration and different departments) who may be willing to talk about what needs to be changed in the charter in the area of city department services.

There were also comments made regarding engaging the public in this process. Some of the mechanisms that can be used to get information regarding the Charter Review Commission proceedings to the public would be the Plain Dealer newspaper, Cleveland City Council web site, the use of web blogs, news releases and even public radio programs and announcements.

Colleen Gilson had commented about communicating with the operation efficiency task force to obtain information from them. It was also suggested that we need to determine who could represent the city Administration on city issues that would need to be discussed in the charter. The Civil Service Department is going to be another major charter topic that will be coming up shortly, and maybe someone from Civil Service could appear before the Charter Review Commission and talk about civil service and what needs to be changed.

Cleveland stated that Departments should simply be given a topic, a date and invited to participate.

In regards to public input it was suggested that we need to solicit ideas from the public regarding what they would like to see changed in the charter and that there should be a definitive date as to when this information should be brought to the Charter Review Commission.

Bill Callahan mentioned that we need to get this public involvement initiative moving as quickly as possible and the Commission should get the word out to citizens via mailing lists, etc. We need to let everyone know that the Charter Review Commission is taking ideas and proposals.

Patrick Mangan commented that there is a need to stretch the timeline out on the proposed draft project sheet that John James had provided. We need to look at this process all the way to August in order to see how the process will look.

Matthew Silverstein suggested that the Charter Review Commission may need to begin working backwards. Silverstein also made other comments in regards to the Charter review process; We need to figure out how we can collect the information, where are we going with that, what does it mean to talk about a particular topic? What are we trying to accomplish and are we trying to make a proposal or to work on such document, what is our purpose? All of these questions need to be answered. It is important that “topics” be well defined.

We need to know where we want to be come August 27th.

Vicky Eaton Johnson supports the chapter by chapter approach, because it enables us to find out the important topics that are in the charter and at that point we can then do the research and present our findings and even bring the administration in to discuss those important issues that we have uncovered.

Robert Triozzi mentioned that we need to gather as much information as we can and then can review what we have. The sub-committee can do this particular task and once they have completed their research and fact-finding, information can be provided to the commission. At that point the Commission can determine if this is a real issue or not. Triozzi believes a chapter by chapter approach can be useful. Gilson concurred.

Should this be a real issue then the Commission can proceed to do further follow-up. We should go through the charter chapter by chapter and determine if there should be changes made, and what the issues are that needs to be addressed.

Colleen Gillson raised a question if anyone knows the reason on why was the last Council reduction took place?

Triozzi also mentioned that we need to hear from the different departments, unions in order to find out what their concerns are. The commission can then hear these concerns and determine if any of them are real issues or not. At that point the Charter Review Commission could make a determination if any of these concerns or issues needs a charter change.

Another comment that was made suggested that a sub-committee could go out and find the people who may have expertise or interest in specific topic areas to bring them in to speak to the commission about a particular charter topic. A working group can also work on these issues and come up with findings and ca work closely with the Review Commission on examining these issues.

Silverstein suggested that a sub-committee can Shepard in a presentation. The Commission can then decide what is important and send it back out to a sub-committee for proposals that the Commission can the make the final decision on.

Bill Callahan mentioned that we will have to know what is in the recommendations by the middle of July. We can work chapter by chapter through those known topics and lets identify those topics that are good items for sub-committees and by March put this into place. We should look at having working sessions to go systemically through the materials that we are looking at.

Look at ideas for charter and set deadline to respond by the end of March, 1st of April.

Councilman Ken Johnson expressed concern about cutting people off if they should come up with ideas after the deadline for submission. Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that we could still take ideas from the citizens, but we need to encourage them to submit their thoughts and ideas before the deadline.

Councilman Ken Johnson expressed concerned about targeting people, Phyllis Cleveland talked about doing targeted outreach to the community. She stated that input can still be accepted after a cut-off, but the Commission would have to move on.

Internet, newspapers, and other forms of communication can be used - Cleveland City Council has always posted information on the web and the major papers. We can continue to do this. Councilman Coats pointed out the publicity does not need to be done on Commission time since staff can accomplish this task.

Someone suggested that a small card with printed web site address and other sites where information can be sent by interested citizens could be handed out to Charter Review Commission members for distribution to members of the public who are interested about the Charter Review process. This can be done.

Roosevelt Coats commented that we need to prioritize what issues we are going to discuss, let’s start off small and move forward with a simple agenda. Gilson pointed out that things cannot be publicized until they are established by the Commission.

The chapter by chapter approach appears to be the most preferable. Chairwoman Cleveland stated that as final, the Commission has determined to set an agenda, pick topics chapter by chapter and bring people in as a result and to do continual public input.

Council reduction is a big issue and what should our approach be regarding this, Judge Jasper has been repeatedly asked by citizens about this one particular topic. At some point we need to deal with this Council reduction issue, however the Charter Review Commission should begin focusing its attention the soft issues.

Mangan suggested that an approach where the Commission determines when Council Reduction will be addressed, so that the public can anticipate that and the Commission can be prevented from being consistently bogged down with that one issue. If we are approached by people outside the commission about this Council reduction, what should our answer be? We need to make certain that there is a unified answer by the Commission.

We need to spend time doing something concrete, then this will be better for the Commission, let’s start figuring out concrete procedures and move ahead.

Cleveland stated that nominations and elections will be the next items to be reviewed and discussed by the Commission.

Make a list take chapter and go through it, if there are issues can route to sub-committee who can then do the initial work.

The Commission members recognized that the departments of Civil service, police and fire, and finance should be reviewed separately the other chapters could be done together. Cleveland City Council could be done separately as well.

Patrick Mangan made a motion that Phyllis Cleveland, Richard Horvath and Robert Triozzi could get together and go through the charter, chapter by chapter and establish an agenda on where the Commission wants to be by August 1st. This motion was supported by the Commission.

Other comments that were made included where are we going after we talk about the topics pertaining to the charter, what happens next? Once we hear from the presenters the Commission will discuss whether or not it is a legitimate issue and if it is, then a sub-committee would be formed to examine the issue and report back its findings to the commission and recommended charter changes.

Initial review, identify issues, set timeline to do that, and then look at subcommittees and then come back with proposals we should have a stack of initial proposals by June 1st to review. Need to have special process on my critical issues. Also have an investigation board.

Agenda incorporates the fact that will be sub-committees that will do research on those issues that are identified. It should also incorporate the direction to be taken after a topic is discussed. Triozzi suggested a determination for further action should be made by the Commission directly following a discussion on any given topic.

Mangan made an official motion that Rick Horvath, Robert Triozzi and Phyllis Cleveland organize a timeline with topics to formulate an agenda in time for the next meeting.

Gilson volunteered to be included in the effort. Cleveland also added Katherine Samsa and John James to the work.

The motion was seconded by Coats and Johnson and passed unanimously.

Jasper requested that the agenda to be created be distributed to members as soon as possible. Coats reminded everyone that the Chapter on elections needs to have been read before the next meeting. Gilson requested written information from presenters before they come in.

Meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Cleveland.