Charter Review Commission
April 24, 2008
Agenda

We will meet in Cleveland City Council’s Committee Room (217).

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) Civil Service - Presentation by CSEA
If time permits:
2) Amendments proposed by the Department of Law (Chap 15)
3) Amendments proposed by the Clerk of Council (Chap 5)
4) Additional amendments concerning Cleveland City Council (Chap 5)
5) Discussion of future Commission schedule

Charter Commission Review Meeting
April 24, 2008

Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:45 AM and brought the CSEA representatives to the table to have them respond to the Administration’s proposal relating to civil service.

Patrick Madigan and Kevin Pendergrast came to the table to provide a response to the Administration’s proposal. Madigan commented that these proposals would not be in the best interest of the city. Madigan provided a hand-out on their responses.  Mandigan then went through the Administration’s proposals.

Charter Section 125 – The CSEA sees no reason to change the current practice.  According to the CSEA the Administration provided no evidence or examples as to why the current system needs to be revised.  The CSEA still holds the position that the Civil Service Commission should be an independent watchdog.

[Use handout to follow Mandigan’s presentation – Comments of Patrick Madigan, President of the CSEA to the Cleveland Charter Review Commission, April 24, 2008]

Madigan concluded his presentation regarding the CSEA response to the Administration’s proposed changes.  Chairperson Cleveland then opened it up for questions from Charter Review Committee Commission members.  Managan questioned Section 128 and subsection I, page 3 regarding the Administration’s proposed changes, which correlates with page 9 in the CSEA document.  Managan was concerned about letter I in this subsection and there were some discussions on it, especially in regards to competitive and promotional tests.

Lucille Amboz, Secretary of the Civil Service Commission mentioned that in regards to the promotional test she did not have the materials with her, but that not all competitive tests are not multiple tests, but may be based on resumes.

CSEA objects because promotional tests are being removed.  CSEA also feels that the rules regarding the testing that is being proposed by the administration are ambiguous.  Ambroz mentioned that the rules can change over time by any administration and Council. 

Roosevelt Coats mentioned that we have listened to a number of debates and all of our time is being consumed with civil service and we need to move this to a sub-committee to examine civil service issues in greater detail.

Bill Callahan mentioned that the issues have been drawn very clearly and that a sub-committee could look at this.  Cleveland mentioned that he is in support of Coat’s comments regarding the use of a sub-committee to look at civil service more closely.  Anton Farmby is the chairman of the sub-committee and will be putting something together very shortly in regards to scheduling a meeting to examine the issues surrounding civil service.

Matthew Silverstein brought up the issue of residency and wanted some comments on this from CSEA. Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that the residency issue will be examined later on during the charter review commission meetings.

Madigan mentioned that some of the members of CSEA would like to be on the sub-committee.

Richard Horvath and Rachel Nigro Scalish began to continue their discussion on City Council.  They reviewed an amendment to Charter section 26, which requires council candidates to live in the ward this would be in effect for the local election scheduled for 2013.  Roosevelt Coats mentioned that in the event we have Council right sized there may be two parts that we may want to consider.  If we decide to go with the residency requirement for the ward,  the 12 month requirement must be examined as well.  Ken Johnson wanted more clarification on this proposal by Coats. 

This amendment has two parts, which is a 12 month residency requirement for ward that a candidate must reside in before filing a petition.  It was also clarified that if you are filing petitions in 2009 to enter into a councilmatic race you must live in the ward. 

Richard Horvath mentioned that for the local election in 2009, all candidates for Council must live in the ward when they file their petitions.  In 2013 prior to the election candidates must live in the ward 12 months prior to filing petition.  This is what Coats was proposing. 

Ken Johnson mentioned that why is this being put into the charter now?  This had originated from some of the council persons according to Horvath.  How can the councilperson represent their residents if they don’t live in the ward?  Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that is what some of the Council members wanted. 

Vicky Johnson mentioned that some of the employees at Fairfax Development Corporation in referring to the most recent councilmatic election in Ward 6, mentioned that candidates for Council need to live in the ward if they want to represent them as a member of council.

Kevin Kelley mentioned that the current rule is silly, if you are elected to ward but do not live in ward but move in and then move out at a later time and lose your seat, it is a silly law.  The voters will take this into consideration in regards to the council member.  The voter will decide as to this ward residency issue in the next election.

Bill Callahan mentioned that this is a job description issue and should be discussed in its proper context.  Cleveland wanted to know the history behind the provision, and Horvath mentioned that he will go back and research the past charters. 

Roosevelt Coats mentioned that residency did not become part of the mandate until 1983/84.  Richard Horvath mentioned that the residency law for city employees went into effect in 1982, and the qualifications for council went into effect in 1931. 

It was mentioned by Ken Johnson that there were three members of Council elected to the office at one time (this was historical information) who did not live in the ward.  Silverstein had raised that question.  Ken Johnson mentioned that there were some council members who lived out of town and clear across town in the past, and they did not reside in ward.

Horvath mentioned that we have to be careful especially during a reapportionment year when the ward boundary lines are being redrawn.

Ken Johnson mentioned that in the past in regards to redistricting several council persons were redistricted out of their wards.  We have to be very careful about this especially if someone has a sizable investment in their current ward such as a $300,000 home.  We have to look at this from all angles when we decide to do reapportionment.

Bill Callahan mentioned that if Council is doing the redistricting this is something that would have to looked at. 

Mabel Jasper raised the question if there is some language that could be added to the redistricting issue.  Horvath mentioned that he will look at some language in regards to this specific issue.  Richard Horvath mentioned that if Council redistricts and at some point in time the council person who is affected would have to move in order to run for that seat.  These are the factors that need to be considered especially during reapportionment. 

Section 28 Meetings of Council – first Monday in January is when the Council meets for swearing in the new members.  It was proposed that the meeting be on the next business day if that Monday is a legal holiday.  Horvath mentioned that if you want to make it the following Monday, you can do that, by holding it on January 2nd, you would have the new councilperson starting right away without any delay. 

Roosevelt Coats mentioned that he supports the amendment change.  The present councilperson is still the councilperson until the new councilperson is sworn into office. 

Executive sessions were also brought up by Rachel Nigro Scalish who mentioned that city council would have the ability to go into executive sessions as is presently being done by the State.  There would be a motion to adjourn into an executive session by the Council if such a need were to arise.

Executive sessions are private meetings of the Council and the public are not invited to these meetings.  There are matters that Council may want to have a closed meeting session on such as homeland security where information may be very sensitive.  Kevin Kelley brought up several examples where executive sessions could have been helpful such as the CPP 5 year expansion plan where the information was sensitive.

Callahan raised question as to the time limit of executive sessions and is there any process where the documents that are handed out in these meetings can be made available to the public.  Horvath mentioned that portions of a document would be public record, only those portions of the document that are sensitive would not be considered public record.

Ken Johnson mentioned a hypothetical case of what if he was having dinner with several Council members and a reporter was nearby and whether that person could be allowed to attend that kind of meeting?  Horvath mentioned that if council business is being discussed then it would be a public meeting and the reporter could attend.  Such a dinner meeting could not be declared an executive session. 

Richard Horvath mentioned that the Department of Port Control will be here next week and Public Safety the following week.

Richard Horvath proceeded to go through the rest of the proposed council changes in regards to council documents and the Mayor’s estimate.  Electronic copies of the budget are available on the city’s website, and to reduce the volume of paper that is often required. 

Callahan mentioned that we should be careful in regards to electronic documents and need to add language and/or and to put all of the documents on the city’s website.  Horvath mentioned that the clerk could print out a copy of the document upon request by the general public. 

Horvath mentioned the appropriation ordinance in relation to the budget.  Propose a one week holdover period, provides Council more time to go over the budget.
  
Chairperson Cleveland adjourned the meeting at 10:42 AM.