Charter Review Commission
April 17, 2008
Agenda

We will meet in Cleveland City Council’s Caucus Room (Enter through 220). 

Cleveland City Council security has asked that Commission Members that are not Members or staff of Cleveland City Council refrain from entering Council offices without an escort.

1) Amendments proposed by the Department of Law (Chap 15)
2) Amendments proposed by the Clerk of Council (Chap 5)
3) Additional amendments concerning Cleveland City Council (Chap 5)
4) Discussion of future Commission schedule

Charter Commission Review
April 17, 2008

Vice-Chair Triozzi called the meeting to order at 8:42 AM.  Richard Horvath provided handouts to the Commission on recommendations for changes for the Law Department including the qualification and duties of the Director of Law and the Director as the prosecuting attorney.

Currently the Law Department has to sign off on all contracts, including form registration and licensing.  Law would like to recommend that the language in Sec. 83 is reinterpreted to mean that the Law Department only signs off when the City has an obligation, not on these types of forms that get people to agree to follow the City’s laws come in. Richard Horvath explained the purpose of the changes to the Commission, which is to reduce the volume of paperwork that comes to the law department. 

Greg Huth raised the question if there would be someone else that will be checking on contracts and contract verification that is being reviewed.  Horvath explained that part of the transition will be ensuring that other City departments – appointing authorities – are accountable.  However, the law department should focus on liabilities.  With Law now signing off on form documentation, the other departments don’t pay as much attention.

Ken Johnson mentioned if the city’s moral liability would be exposed if the departments have to check on the information that is on the contracts.  Richard Horvath mentioned that the department should have procedures in place to make sure that any information is being provided accurately, and to determine if the city should be exposed to any liability. 

One comment was made if there should be language to reflect the city’s exposure to any liability.  Kevin Kelley mentioned that some other language recommendations should be considered such as the Director of Law shall prepare all contracts.  Horvath will make the revisions to the language and bring it back to the Commission for review.  Horvath mentioned that there are some contracts that the law department does not need to see.

Section 84 was covered by Richard Horvath in regards to the prosecuting attorney.  Currently, the Law director has the ability to hire as many civil attorneys as the budget allows but is limited in the number of prosecutors and must seek additional approval to make staffing changes in that t office.  Law is proposing that this additional regulation be removed and the Director allowed to control staffing in the prosecutor’s office the same way as he does for civil attorneys.  City Council would still determine the number of assistant prosecutors through the budget process.

Kevin Kelley asked how big of an issue is this?  Robert Triozzi mentioned that he has been looking at the prosecutor office to find ways on improving it, but if he did anything to improve it he would have to go before the Council. Richard Horvath mentioned that there have been times with past law directors where they mentioned the need for another additional assistant prosecutor. 

Ken Johnson mentioned that this was put into the Charter because of the need for having a check and balance system.  Expressed concern that law director should come to council explaining what it is that he is trying to do.  Kevin Kelley raised the question if there is any other section in the charter that allows department directors to hire additional positions.  Horvath mentioned that he did not know if there was any other case where this is being done.

Bill Callahan mentioned if you are going through the budget process and in the middle of the year there may be a staffing need that comes up, how would this be implemented?  Richard Horvath mentioned that there are always supplemental appropriations that are used to deal with the staffing needs. 

Ken Johnson suggested that we need to be careful in regards to what we do with this.  Robert Triozzi mentioned that there is a lot of enforcement action along with an increase in volume, which becomes a management issue.  You have to deal with staffing issues from week to week according to Triozzi.

Ken Johnson believes that what the Law Department is asking for is for City Council to give away the store.  Matt Silverstein thinks this is unfair because City Council still has authority over the budget.  Even though council may be giving up some power, it still has the authority. 

Bill Callahan raised the questioned regarding the budget process and if the number of attorneys hired are determined by what is allocated in the budget and if additional funds would be added to cover such contingencies such as additional personnel. 

Ken Johnson mentioned about the transfer of funds that occur at the end of the year, which is something that is done all of the time in regards to covering any unforeseen expenses that come up. 

Kevin Kelley mentioned that the prosecution office is generally good, and right now they are pretty fully staffed.  Having the ability to get prosecution done in various court cases and hearings is very important. 

Mabel Jasper asked what is wrong with the Council ordinance, Richard Horvath mentioned that City Council can still say no, and we are still constrained by the number of personnel allowed. 

Roosevelt Coats mentioned if there have been a situation where this has been a problem in the past regarding number of assistant prosecutors?  Richard Horvath believes that there has been a problem with this in the past.  Roosevelt Coats mentioned that by the end of the day, you must have a balanced budget.  Ken Johnson mentioned that he would like to know why this proposal was put into the charter in the first place in regards to the original policy.  Richard  Horvath will do the research on this and will come back with an answer. 

Robert Triozzi mentioned that he has seen the strain put on the code enforcement section, and had to build up that section through management of the civil side.  In another area of the department there are other needs that he sees, and because he does not have the resources to attend to them appropriately.  Triozzi indicated that there are people who do come have to sit and wait for assistance.  It is very much a budget issue right now. 

Mangan mentioned that number may be shifted depending on what the needs of the city are.  Is there some middle ground that could be looked at in regards to Council giving up some authority and the need for the Law department to hire additional staff?

Rachel Nigro Scalish mentioned to the Commission about City Council Charter changes and went over the proposals with the Commission. 

Section 24 was presented by Scalish, a proposal for special elections, and replacement of council member was discussed.  With less than two years of terms, there would be no need for a special election, the appointed member would serve out the rest of the term and would run in the next regularly held election. 

Ken Johnson raised question how was it determined that the judges who are appointed serve out the rest of the term?  Horvath mentioned that it was determined by State law.  If it is a municipal judge that appointment would be up for the next municipal election. 

If there is a vacancy in the first two years of the term the appointed council member would have to run in the next general election.  If there is no general election within the first two years, then there would be a special election called by the Council. 

Section 26 residency clause for members of Council was covered.  The 12 month residency requirement before running for council office was recommended.  If the Council member was a resident of the ward and were to move out of the ward, that person would have to forfeit their office.  Ken Johnson brought up an issue regarding Winnebago and taking the vehicle and moving into another section of the ward.  Horvath mentioned that this would be no problem as long as it remains in the ward.  However, if it were to move outside of the ward, then that Council member would have to forfeit their seat. 

Phyllis Cleveland brought up the connection between residency and voting address.  Horvath mentioned that this could be litigation question. 

How would the city of Cleveland define residency for its employees.  The same criteria that the city uses for employees would most likely be the same criteria that would be used for the Council member.  Kevin Kelley mentioned that the purpose for putting the residency requirement in this section was done because it was not in here before.  Colleen Gilson mentioned if other cities in Ohio have been looked at in regards to residency for Council members.

Provision regarding residency may need to be put into effect for the 2013 election.  (Changing rules in mid-stream)

Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that the three month overview of the charter Commission’s activities was presented to Council at this past Monday’s Council caucus.  The safety forces and port control are the next two departments after the civil service that will come before the Commission.  There may also be some miscellaneous items to be brought before the commission as well. 

Cleveland mentioned that the subcommittees need to meet and bring their recommendations back to the Commission.  We are also working to set up meetings with the public and to discuss the Council reduction issue and residency.

May 13th and May 15th are the first two meeting dates for the public gathering.  The Harvard Community Service Center and the Gunning recreation Center were identified as sites for the first two public meetings.

Colleen Gilson asked if any civic or neighborhood organization has asked to speak before the commission regarding any of these issues?  Bill Callahan had also raised the same question.  Cleveland had mentioned that this has not been done as of yet. 

Overview would be provided as to what is and what is not considered charter amendments and to talk about Council reduction and city residency requirements. 

Kelley mentioned that we have made a lot of effort to inform people in regards to the charter.  It might be worth while to do a second run.  We need to be careful how we carefully seek public input.  We don’t want to have the kind of talk show environment.

Roosevelt Coats indicated that the response from the public has been slow in coming in because they are more focused on the presidential election. 

Managan mentioned that we need to be careful that we don’t alienate the public and that there are underlying issues and other provisions that need to be dealt with

Triozzi mentioned about having dialogue on both pro and con about the reduction of council and city residency.  You want to present both sides instead of looking at just getting opinions and inputs from the public.

Bill Callahan mentioned that he is interested in how to access government.  Would like to figure out what the issues are in regards to council reduction and what the impact could be in regards to this.  There needs to be a series of hearings before we go out and proceed to engage the public.

Ken Johnson mentioned that he agrees with Callahan on this point.  Anton Farmsby mentioned that we need to understand what the reduction of Council would mean.  We need to understand this first before we go out and engage the public. 

Katherine Buluva mentioned that it should be the City Council responsibility to engage the public on the Council reduction issue.  The Commission should be mindful that it is reviewing proposals, and need to make decisions regarding them.  However there is the problem of contradiction by the Commission if it takes the wrong approach in examining and discussing these issues. 

Greg Huth mentioned that idea of presenting pro and con to each side of the issue can help the public to look at the entire issue and on what it means and maybe the College of Urban Affairs could be engaged in this process as well.  Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that we are already looking at that.

Cleveland mentioned that we need to show justification for the recommendations that are made by the Charter Commission. 

Ken Johnson raised the question on what we are going to do at these public meetings.  Cleveland mentioned that we want public input at these meetings.

Callahan mentioned about having an informed public discussion.  Ken Johnson mentioned that we as a body should not be advocating to the public on any of the issues that we are presently examining.  Bill Callahan suggested that we need to have a better structure when we engage the public. 

Phyllis Cleveland adjourned the meeting at 10:33 AM.