Charter Commission Review Meeting
February 21, 2008
Chairperson Cleveland called meeting to order and introduced Mr. Brent Lawler from the Board of Elections to provide a presentation on the Cuyahoga County Board of Election proposal to change primary municipal elections to the second Tuesday in September.
Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Director Jane Platten had emergency and could not attend meeting.
Lawler explained that consolidation of the fall primary elections could lead to significant cost savings for the Board of Elections, through timely preparation and opening of absentee ballots along with saving staff time, thus allowing them enough time to prepare for the November elections. Lawler then proceeded to explain the process of modifying the primary election. On the day of the primary, absentee voting opens for the general election. Legally, candidates cannot currently be certified for 12 days according to federal law. Should a runoff or recount be necessary, timelines are difficult to adhere to. The BOE proposed that the primary be moved back to the 2nd Tuesday in September. Lawler also proposed that the filing deadline be scheduled 75 days prior to the election, he also mentioned that the time of the filing deadline be scheduled at 4:00 PM. for those candidates running for office. The extra time is necessary to allow for careful counts and petition checks and printing of ballots.
Roosevelt Coats requested information on election dates for the other cities in Cuyahoga County in order to look at comparisons.
Triozzi asked for the percentage of municipalities that now operate under the BOE’s proposal, which could not be specified, but was said to be substantial. The BOE pointed out the Cleveland represents 30% of Cuyahoga County precincts. Charter changes to allow coordination have been proposed to all Cuyahoga municipalities.
Patricia Britt raised the question if this is the election board’s first request for a charter amendment? Mr. Lawler had indicated that former elections Board Director Michael Vu had attempted to propose such amendment some time ago, but was not successful in making the change. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has to abide by the city’s charter in regards to election process. Mr. Lawler indicated that the Board has sent letters to all of the cities within Cuyahoga County requesting that they change their charter in regards to the election process.
A question was raised by one of the Commission members regarding what if the city of Cleveland is the only city that approves the charter change for primary election day and no other city does so, would there still be a benefit to the board? Mr. Lawler mentioned that it would still benefit the board because the city of Cleveland accounts for 30% of the precincts and effective date alignment for Cleveland can save a minimum of $15,000 just on ballot printing. There would also be less communities to process election ballots from the primary, which would greatly shorten the time for the Board of Elections staff to process all of the ballots that were cast during that election.
Lawler also explained that changing the primary election day would save the elections board money, he also indicated how much it would cost the Board to utilize staff, equipment, materials, and other resources for the election.
Richard Horvath had raised a question to the Commission members regarding “how long of an election season do you want in Cleveland?” The campaign time between the primary and general election could be shorter, which does not allow for much time for a candidate to campaign, which could benefit the incumbent, because the challenger does not have as much time to get their name out into the community. How does Cleveland want to conduct its election time period is one of the central questions.
Callahan commented that the filing deadline so close to the opening date of the absentee voting ballots. This was another concern that the board had also raised.
There was also a suggestion made that should the city decide not to choose the 70 day timeframe before the election, it could go to 60 days and eliminate the 5-day rule.
Issue is the safety net – if you want to run for office you need to have sufficient signatures before the filing deadline – Horvath
Jasper – think it is a good idea, in regards to safety net
There was a question raised regarding the number of recall elections that were held over the last 20 – 30 years in the city of Cleveland. There was a recall for former Mayor Dennis Kucinich and the most recent one in Cleveland City Council. The cost for a recall election is estimated to be approximately $4,000 per precinct.
Mr. Lawler also spoke about ES&S and there role in assisting the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. It is estimated to be approximately $15,000 to pay for the services that ES&S provides. The ES&S is also required to print the ballots for the board of elections.
Ballot vendor ES&S - $15,000 cost.
Mr. Lawler mentioned that moving the election primary day to the second Tuesday and moving the filing deadline 75 days before the primary is consistent with state law. There were two issues raised by Phyllis Cleveland. Twelve days after the filing deadline has passed to protest the candidate if one chooses to do so. An additional 12 days after the ten days have elapsed if you should have a recount – if someone wants to challenge the election (11 day after the election and 1 day to certify the recount).
The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections is taking the position that city changes it filing deadline and proposes that city goes to 75 day deadline.
Lawler also mentioned Chapter 7 section 57 if the clerk gives Council 30 days before the election to put an item on the ballot, if there is an election within 30 days and 6 months after the clerk certifies it, then that item shall be fixed on that election day, however the board cannot put this on the ballot (does not have enough time to process this). Potential problem, board does not know how it can accommodate that. Recommend that city change the 30 days to 60 days.
A petition should be certified in 30 days and 6 months, this would be put on the ballot for that election, which falls within that specific time-frame.
Kevin Kelley asked a question regarding line two in chapter 7, Richard Horvath mentioned - Not less than 60 days, and that the board could not do an election in 30 days
Lawler mentioned about the suburbs and the efforts that the County Elections Board is taking to get them to move their primary election date to the second Tuesday in September. According to Lawler; meetings are taking place right now with the other suburbs. If the Commission believes that the Board of Elections suggestion to move the primary day to the second Tuesday in September it can make that recommendation to Council to put it on the ballot.
Richard Horvath distributed information to the Commission members and explained that there are four types of elections (primary, general, recall initiative and referendum).
Richard Horvath provided some specific particulars regarding the election process to the Commission members:
Chapter 3 in the Charter and section 4 - changing primary election day was discussed. There was a comment made the everyone must be made that recall elections follow the same process, there is also a need to amend the recall election process if there is a change to the primary election day.
Section 5 deals with number
There is also a two step process for petitions, which was explained to the Commission members. There is a nomination committee, which to nominate a candidate. When there are sufficient numbers of signatures the candidate will then have 5 days to inform let the board know if he/she is going to run for office.
Section 7 – proposal –Horvath mention that should the city of Cleveland decide to follow the state process then section 9 would have to be repealed as well.
In the city of Cleveland all petitions must be notarized (not required by state law). Charter section 6 refers to affidavit also in section 7, do you want to mirror the state law instead?
If person who signed petition is not registered, it could invalidate that petition.
Filing deadline greater than 35 days, re-check process should be made 60 days before. Horvath
Charter section 9
Recall – Charter section 16 – in section 17, the process
Section 18 – flagged if commission wants to deal with this. Mr. Lawler mentioned that the Elections Board could have a problem with this issue and that they would prefer 50 day time period between 50 – 75 days.
Phyllis Cleveland mentioned about the proposed calendar, and explained how the Commission would deal with this. Some of the issues could go to a sub-committee and is willing to stay to further after the meeting to discuss this, she indicated that the Commission may need to revise the calendar further.
Let’s do what we can today and then pick up next week where we left off. Campaign finance reform will be discussed next week.
Recall – need to repair the election process if the voters decide there will be a recall. It was also mentioned that should you fix the filing deadline 75 days before the primary election, there would be 120 days that may not allow enough time to comply with the filing deadline and election during that timeframe.
Richard Horvath also explained Charter section 21. According to Horvath should an elected official get recalled that position would be open for 120 days, there is nothing in the charter that fills an office if the Mayor or a member of Council is recalled.
Section 73 – there is no provision to fill in a gap for a recall election (only disability in this event the Law Director would serve as Mayor, should the actual Mayor become incapacitated)
Horvath mentioned that the Acting Mayor and Acting Council person could be placed in positions for 120 days; the acting council person would be selected by the Council. There are certain circumstances where a Councilperson can be removed from office for such things as questionable behavior or conduct.
Initiative referendum – issues related to similar issues regarding petitions being notarized and when do you fix your election was mentioned by Horvath. – Commission may want to look at this
Specific time-frame as to when the recall petition must be turned over to the clerk was also discussed. It was suggested that there be a provision to file with the Council Clerk and at that point she has a certain time period to process the petition papers and the clock begins to tick once the papers are turned over
Collen Gilson raised the question regarding in recall voting process. Gilson had asked if there are other cities where the recall petitions are filed by someone other than the Clerk of Council. Recall petitions are always done through the clerk’s office.
Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that the Commission will finish reviewing campaign finance reform and may look to using a sub-committee to examine this specific issue along with looking at proposed changes. There will be more discussion on the recall process from a City Council perspective.
Meeting adjourned at 10:20 AM.