Charter Review Commission
May 15, 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) Public Safety (Chapter 25)
2) Review of Charter Proposals
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Charter Review Commission
Meeting
Chairperson Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:40 AM and mentioned that the Public Safety Department would be covered at today’s meeting. Chairperson Cleveland also spent some time on the Commission’s review of each proposal that has been presented so far to the Commission. Each member received a form provided by Richard Horvath that contains all of the proposals for charter change that has been heard by the Commission since February, Chairperson Cleveland requested that all members turn those forms in to Katherine Buluva who will then compile the information.
Safety Director Martin Flask presented the Public Safety section to the Commission members. Director Flask spoke about the Police Review Board and mentioned that there are some structural changes that are needed. Under the current system, whenever there is a police investigation on officer misconduct, police officers within the division are often assigned to perform investigations on fellow officers. This protocol is followed whenever the board is investigating conduct by police officers, and this has caused issues in the past with the public. Director Flask had suggested a recommendation that one or more investigators be appointed by the executive head of the police force, and the recommended change would allow appointing authority to appoint investigators to investigate police officers instead of having the police officers do this.
Director Flask also recommended that the Police Review Board be expanded to seven members in order to be more inclusive. The two additional members would be added to the board and this would go into effect on August 08, 2009. Director Flask reviewed some of the past policy changes that the Police Review Board had initiated such as audio-video cameras installed in all police lobbies and daily review police reports that includes the name of citizens that officers came into contact with during a police response, these are things that were done in the past.
Greg Huth raised a question if there would be any police officers on the investigative team, Flask mentioned that there may be one police investigator involved. Richard Horvath mentioned that August 8, 2009 was the new date for the two new board members, which would put them in-between those members whose terms are up before and after 2009 so you would have staggered terms.
Chairperson Cleveland raised a question about what are the qualifications for a civilian investigator. Flask mentioned that this would be determined by Civil Service, previous law enforcement experience would be required and there would be some set criteria and requirements as well. Kevin Kelley also raised the same question about the process, Flask mentioned that this would be a full-time job and there would need to be a minimum staffing level to handle this kind of job.
Office of Professional Standards investigates conduct issues by the police officers. It was also mentioned that the terms for the members of the Police Review Board would be for four years.
Colleen Gilson raised a question if the Fire Chief would be present to talk about the ARC Unit at the airport. There are plans to bring the Fire Chief to next week’s meeting and the union will also have an opportunity to comment on the proposal as well according to Chairperson Cleveland.
Richard Horvath provided amendments on charter review, and mentioned about proposed recommendations for the charter to be reviewed every 5 years and also included a 6 year review in order not to have the charter review conducted in the same year of a local election. If the review period is shortened, then it should be done in a non-election year in Cleveland.
Cleveland mentioned that many of the issues that we have to deal with require a lot of time, and would like to hear comments on this proposed change from the other commission members.
Bill Callahan mentioned that the issues should come to the commission more right than they presently are and that 6 months is really too short in order to conduct a proper charter review.
Patrick Mangan mentioned that based on the amount of work that has been done already, there are other mechanisms that are not working and there are items, which are outdated. There should be a 6 year process on the charter review.
Comment made from a member of the public audience if citizens could raise questions to the Commission on relevant issues pertaining to the charter. Ken Johnson mentioned that it should be submitted in writing, and Bill Callahan mentioned that there should be some time allowed for citizens to raise questions or comments to the commission members. Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that she is open to the suggestion, but indicated that there needs to be consideration given to the time constraints that may come up that are directly related to examining the charter.
Vicky Johnson mentioned if 10 minutes could be allotted for someone to make comments to the Commission members this might help.
Matthew Silverstein mentioned there are different ways to view the charter these documents are not meant to be changed all the time. Sometimes, things may change rapidly and then change back again. The review of the charter every 6 years is very large and does not allow much time for review and would prefer to leave it at 20 years in regards to conducting a full scale charter review.
Robert Triozzi mentioned that given the volume of information involved in reviewing the charter it would be unfair to present so much information to the citizens for them to consider in regards to changing the charter, and 20 years is a long time and 6 years may be too short, would be more willing to go with a 10 year time frame for conducting a charter review.
Mabel Jasper mentioned that the constitution is not changed but the charter tells you what the city does and it should be changed on a regular basis. The charter is a document that provides citizens with a functional working of the government and should be changed on a regular basis such as six or ten years. Our society changes so frequently and we need to take this into consideration.
Ken Johnson mentioned that he agrees with Silverstein and added that the city charter has an avenue of belief and nothing has ever been extreme where change was required. In regards to the 20 years timeline, wholesale changes in the charter document is impossible and trying to rush through the charter review could cause us to make mistakes we should leave the charter at the 20 year timeline. We must make certain to use all caution when it comes to this document, and things do not change that fast.
Anton Farmsby is in agreement that 20 years is a long time, but it was meant to be that way. But if there were a shortening of the review process there would be less issues to deal with. This document is to give us guidance to governance and the Council could review the charter periodically and make changes when necessary. Six months is not enough time to review the charter and would propose doing a 12 month review of the charter to give more time for reviewing the document, and would support ten or twenty years to review the charter.
Ken Johnson mentioned that he could outwait the document if it was reviewed every 6 years and he could do this for political purposes.
Patrick Mangan mentioned that the world is changing and that the city needs changing and believes that we need a 6 year charter review and it should be longer than 6 months to review the charter document and proposed revisions.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned whether everyone is in agreement that 6 months is too short a period of time to review the charter, the majority of commission members agreed that the 6 month period was too short.
Silverstein mentioned that it is unrealistic to think that city council is going to put 146 proposals on the ballot, there will only be a few items going on the ballot and those items need to be prioritized.
Ken Johnson mentioned that the more you have, the more a voter has to read what is on the ballot. Bill Callahan mentioned that there are different kinds of changes and that language change is a major item. Then there are administrative reforms which may be put on a faster cycle.
There needs to be a discussion sooner on how to make certain processes more efficient when it comes to examining the charter.
Richard Horvath mentioned that when you are making changes in lengthening or shortening charter review, you can run into the risk of running into a newly elected council and issues of when appointments are made and issues of coordination and this is one of the reasons why February was chosen to appoint a Charter review commission as well as beginning and ending the process within one year.
Cleveland questioned about the creation of the charter review commission and the year when it was initiated. This was done in 1968 according to Horvath a group of citizens wanted to institutionalize the charter review process and the first time there was not much organized effort.
Farmsby mentioned if we cut the time of the charter from 20 to 10 years and would issues that come up over that period subsides if such a change were made? Ken Johnson agrees, but would like to extend the time to conduct the review.
Patrick Mangan mentioned that City Council could review some of those other items that were discussed during the charter review process but did not make it one the ballot.
Vicky Johnson mentioned the possibility about putting different charter provisions on the ballot year to year, Horvath mentioned that this could be done where Council has the flexibility of putting certain charter items on the ballot. So there is some flexibility in this area.
Mangan mentioned that charter revisions that would save the city the most money should be the priority and these revisions should be placed on the ballot.
Horvath mentioned that in regards as to how the present process is set up, it is the council that determines what items get on the ballot in regards to the changing the charter.
Horvath mentioned that the council must make its decision within 30 days after receiving recommendation on charter changes from the Charter Review Commission. It is Council that makes the determination on what to do with the recommendations.
Callahan mentioned that the staffing of the Commission came from outside city hall during the last Charter review that was done in 1988.
Greg Huth mentioned if any thought came into doing this charter under a special election. Horvath mentioned that it could be done, however the problem is the cost for holding a special election.
Horvath mentioned that in the past there have been initiatives that failed such as a one year term for the council, which did not make it.
Farmsby mentioned that everything changes from the movement of the people, and there needs to be some kind of follow-up with the council to maker sure that these items are being attended to by the body and that if the people are interested in seeing this initiatives go through then the council would be compelled to act.
Mangan mentioned that the city needs change we have to do something in regards to the proposals that are received by the commission. Ken Johnson mentioned that the commissioners that bring proposals to the commission are doing so in terms of their vested interested which might not be in his vested interest, and this has to be taken into consideration as well.
Horvath mentioned that he hears three proposals in relation to time Johnson mentioned that the council must have a mandate otherwise it won’t get done.
Callahan mentioned that there are many different ways that the council can act in regards to the charter. It was further mentioned that it is not realistic that 100 items will be submitted. The process of how do you keep people on track is something that still needs to be determined.
Matthew Silverstein mentioned about city council and making items a priority over the next several years is where the change would be seen. Farmsby mentioned that the ownership is not in the hands of the people that make the decision.
Silverstein mentioned that it is going to be very difficult in getting all of these proposals to the people to vote on, when you consider the content and number of proposals that need to be considered.
Comment was made in regards to the timeframe on when the charter should be reviewed, and if it should be every 10yrs, 20 yrs and the length of time for doing the actual review.
Alvaro mentioned that she agrees with 10 years and 6 month review and if there could be a 10 month follow-up with the council to make sure that the items be kept on the Council agenda.
Horvath mentioned that he will put together a list containing all of the timeline options in the charter review and the Commission can vote on the various proposals.
Callahan mentioned that February 1st should be the start date for initiating a charter review proposed that recommendations be provided to council at the end of the year and be put on the ballot the following year.
Horvath went over the upcoming items that the commission will be covering in the coming weeks and mentioned that we are approaching the end of the department items and the two big issues are still out there, which are right-sizing council and the city residency law. But the departments are just about done.
Huth mentioned about the new dates of the public meetings, which will be done in the last two weeks in June.
Cleveland mentioned that she will be follow-up with the sub-committees to see where they are on recommendations and revisions.
Audience – someone came to the table and addressed the committee – with the review done every 6 years there will be many black eyes from reviewing the items and so much that needs to be reviewed can become very trying can wear people out, may need to consider reviewing charter every ten or even fifteen years, because there is so much information to e covered. There are some issue and items that could not be changed every 6 years.
Horvath mentioned to make sure that the proposal sheets are turned in.
Cleveland adjourned meeting at 10:21 AM