Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:45 AM and mentioned that the Care and Fire Union wanted to address the Commission on charter proposal issues and that Carol Caruso from the Cleveland Downtown Partnership wanted to come in on July 10th to address the Commission and that the Greater Downtown Partnership has taken no position on the issue of Council reduction.

Chairperson Cleveland mentioned about debriefing on the two public meetings that were held last week and this week at Cuyahoga Community College Metro Campus and at Gunning Recreation Center this past Tuesday evening.  Several commission members mentioned that based upon comments made from the citizens at the previous two meetings copies of the proposals and charter should be provided for distribution at future public meetings.  Greg Huth mentioned that there were many comments from the public about having a lack of understanding about the process of the city charter.  Patrick Mangan mentioned if the television media could be contacted about the last public meeting they could be there to report on the proceeding and this could be used to communicate and inform the rest of the citizens about the proceedings of the charter review commission.  Katherine Buluva, City Council Communications Manager stated that a communication was sent out to all the public media about the public hearing at Harvard Community Service Center this evening.

Greg Huth mentioned if there could be meeting scheduled with the public to help assist them on understanding the city charter and the process that is used to conduct a charter review.  Huth mentioned that this hearing could be held on be held on a Saturday to explain the charter process to interested citizens.  

Roosevelt Coats mentioned that there should be much emphasis made to provide as much information as possible to the general public so they can be kept informed. 

Chairperson Cleveland had thanked Commission members who came to the last two meetings.

Richard Horvath went through the charter recommendations, and some of the major items that were mentioned involved the Council City Record document. In regards to the city record there should be a written copy and a electronic version as well, some comments were made that there should not be just a electronic copy.  A printed copy should always be available especially for the public administration library.  Karen Martinez the Chief Librarian would like to have a printed copy of the city record.  Ken Johnson supports this and mentioned that there should always be a hard copy document available for the public.

Another major item that was discussed were the recall of elected officials as it pertains to removal of the Mayor and members of council.  Recall petitions were discussed and it was mentioned in the proposal that copies of petitions have to be provided to the Clerk of Council by no later than 4pm the next business day. This would provide an orderly process to the recall procedure. 

Affidavit was also mentioned during this discussion, it was commented if there is any limitation on what is in the document, such as specific grounds for wanting the recall.  This has to be related to the council member’s duties or duties that are associated with the office. 

Kevin Kelley mentioned that in relation to the official duties of the elected officials as reasons for recall, there is the issue of the percentage of electors who would need to sign recall petitions. There were recommendations to increase the required percentage of petition signatures from 20% TO 30%. According to Roosevelt Coats who chaired the subcommittee on the City Council recall issue, the subcommittee had decided to increase this figure to 30%. Kevin Kelley also mentioned that this could be a political issue.  It is hard to get 20% of the electorate who voted in the last election and it would be harder to get 30% of the electorate, if the numbers were to be increased, however it is more reasonable to use the new limit.

Ken Johnson mentioned that if people have a reason for opposing this they could take their objections to court.  Robert Triozzi mentioned that the proposal puts the trust into the electorate, and would rather leave the decision with the people instead of the courts.  Judge Mabel Jasper mentioned that misbehavior or questionable conduct of public officials could subject them to recall as well and also felt that the 30% figure is reasonable. 

Bill Callahan mentioned that higher number of signatures makes sense in regards to the recall petition signatures and in regards to the timeline for getting the petition signatures submitted to the Clerk of Council he suggested 45 days as a timeline.  Patrick Mangan mentioned that 30 days might be sufficient if there are any misbehaviors  committed by any elected official. Richard Horvath will write draft proposals on 30 and 45 days timeline for submitting petition signatures.  Horvath mentioned that it may be more appropriate to vote on these proposals after the deadline of July 15th. 

The Recall timeline was set for three months according to Roosevelt Coats, however the sub-committee had decided to leave it the way it is in regards to changing the time that a council member is in office before being subjected to a recall.

Campaign Finance Reform was discussed and Kevin Kelley mentioned that the subcommittee did meet and there is a draft written up and will be provided to all commission members.  Kevin Kelley mentioned that this policy would have the city council provide information on campaign contributions, disclosure, including the appeals process and will provide copies for every commission member.  

Coats mentioned that the state deals with campaign finance reform, Kelley mentioned that he did not want to duplicate state law, and commented about having a local policy that sets the ability to set campaign contribution limits and penalties as well as adding a level of disclosure to the public process.  

Patrick Mangan mentioned that every charter recommendation needs to go through Richard Horvath just to save time.  Horvath will put all of the recommendations in numerical order that is consistent with the charter.  

Proposal 53 discussed the electronic version of the city record.

Matthew Silverstein raised the issue of having a printed document of a council record because there are instances when a there could be electronic failure. Bill Callahan mentioned that the clerk should be able to provide a city council printed document when requested.  Roosevelt Coats commented about the large quantity lot of paper that has to be used and you could have one copy on hand and run that copy off, but it can take much time, another approach would be to have a certain number of copies available for the public.  Matt Silverstein mentioned that there should be a hard copy for historical preservation purposes and could be used for the city archive records. Ken Johnson mentioned that there should be a hard copy of the document on hand at all times.  

Greg Huth mentioned that there should be some record kept in the city archives of city council documents and Ken Johnson mentioned that this should be stated in the charter.  Mabel Jasper mentioned that too much is being made about having a hard copy document, should be able to produce hard copy and this should not be that difficult. 

Proposal 60 – mandatory referral was discussed and reviewed.  

Purchase contract revision was discussed and Mabel Jasper mentioned that there should be a criteria in regards to voting on the proposal for contract authorization for city purchase contracts.  Ken Johnson mentioned that when the contract amount is increased, administration has to go before the council to explain what they are doing with the public’s money.  

Ken Johnson mentioned that government is not a business of trust and the balance of power between administration and council is constant and council should be checking on the administration to see what they are doing.  Roosevelt Coats mentioned that even looking at other cities, it has been $25,000. 

In regards to competitive contracts and who should be allowed to bid for them, Matt Silverstein mentioned that what is best for the citizens need to be considered and there has been some studies done by the administration on this and found that large businesses bid on those contracts that are $12,000, and one of the issues could be that small businesses are not able to bid on these contracts, and getting less competitive bids because of the oversight provision.  Reports do go to council on where the money is being spent.

Richard Horvath mentioned that the charter can be amended where the amount could be increased to $25,000 if council wanted to do that.

Entering into cooperative contracts with other governmental entity was also mentioned by Horvath.  

Topic of exceptions to competitive bidding was also covered by Horvath, and computer purchases are becoming more important.  

Office of professional standards was examined where the Public Safety Director would be allowed to appoint more investigators was also discussed.  Ken Johnson questioned whether it is wise for civilians to be able to indict police officers, and stated that we have to be very careful about this.  Colleen Gilson asked if Police CPPA have responded to this proposal.  Mabel Jasper mentioned that it is very wise not to have police investigators and it is very difficult for the police to investigate itself this is no good.  Jasper mentioned that we need to have someone else perform the investigations.  Ken Johnson mentioned that there is the internal affairs department that does a good job in these matters. 

Proposal requires investigators to be appointed by the safety director, and Ken Johnson raised a question if there should be a number of investigators put into the revised policy.  

Roosevelt Coats mentioned about the bidding process there are bids that are noncompetitive for whatever reason.  

Airport police force was mentioned and Bill Callahan asked if any comment has been provided to the Commission by the CPPA on this matter.  Roosevelt Coats thought that the Police CPPA representatives were present, but it was communicated that representatives from the Fire Union were present to comment on the proposal.  So far no one from the CPPA has been in attendance.  

There was a question raised as to what were the qualifications of the airport director to run police force at airport. Kevin Kelley mentioned that the director is not the one to run the operations, a police chief would be hired to manage the operation.  Bill Callahan mentioned that one of the issues that came up at one of the public meeting pertained to bargaining union.  The police force is controlled by the chief, and the airport police are paid for through reimbursement by the airport, which goes to the general fund.  Richard Horvath mentioned that there would be a new unit at the airport and would have to right to organized and be represented by the union if so desired.  

Anton Farmsby asked if the new police force would be covered by the collective bargaining unit and the airport director to his recollection mentioned that it would be.  Ken Johnson mentioned that it would be the employees’ choice whether or not to join the union. Matt Silverstein mentioned that he was confused about airport police officers who are paid through general fund and the general fund is reimbursed by the airport.  It was mentioned that the city is providing the funding up front and if these officers are moved into the districts this is a financial cost to the city since they would not longer be receiving any reimbursement from the airport.  The city is aware of this according to Kevin Kelley.  

Reorganization of the fire division was mentioned.  Vickie Johnson stated that the fire chief position should remain as it is.  Keep the position classified, it should not be changed.  Ken Johnson mentioned that he would like for the fire chief position to be classified.  The fire chief should remain classified and part of the command staff should remain unclassified and the remaining command staff should be classified.  The fire chief should have some classified command staff underneath him, which would prevent the politicizing of the fire department.

Roosevelt Coats raised the question on how would the two be merged together.  Patrick Mangan mentioned that the hiring command staff outside of the police raises difficulties because it has never worked before and there is no reason to believe that this will work again.  

Greg Huth mentioned that the fire chief could be appointed outside the city but the command staff would have to be appointed from within the ranks. Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the he has mixed feeling regarding bringing someone in from outside the city and even though this has been done in the police department, it has never been tried in the fire division.  It was also mentioned that under this new approach you have an opportunity to bring in new thinking and ideas. Ken Johnson mentioned that the fire department works and if you hire from outside the ranks there should be specific qualifications for the position and other criteria required for these individuals. 

Bill Callahan asked if there was going to be discussion on the schedule process for the Charter Review Commission since the review of the charter proposals is coming to a close.  Callahan also suggested scheduling two additional public hearings to provide an opportunity for Commission members to walk through the charter process with the public, and to hold a final hearing at city hall.

Vickie Johnson asked about whether flyers advertising the public meetings and the charter proposal submission deadline were available.

Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland adjourned the meeting at 10:45 AM