June 5, 2008
Charter Review Commission Meeting

Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:40 AM.  Chairperson Cleveland noted that a correction revision needs to be made in the minutes from the May 29th Charter Review Commission meeting.  The representatives from Fire Union Local 93 who made the presentation at the May 29th meeting were President Chester Ashton and Vice President Tom Lally. The correction was noted. 

Richard Horvath reviewed the Commission’s response to the proposed recommendations that were reviewed by the Commission members.  Each of the proposals was covered in detail by Mr. Horvath during his presentation to the Charter Review Commission.  Some of the more specific information that came up for discussion were proposal 4 and 5.  Patrick Mangan mentioned that proposal 4 should be the  preferred choice and that proposal 5 should be taken off of the table.  Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that this could be put to a vote. 

Richard Horvath mentioned that these are two separate proposals (4 and 5) and indicated that one proposal is for the normal general election and the other is for special elections.

Mabel Jasper raised a question about the signature for candidate petitions in proposal 11.  Ken Johnson mentioned that the petition signatures are checked and that the five days that are being proposed are unnecessary and he believes that mistakes can be made.  Ken Johnson also mentioned that candidates could bring their petitions in to the Board of Elections for a pre-check of the petition signatures.  Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the pre-check of candidate for office petitions has been going on for some time.  Coats also mentioned that additional time to review these petitions would take up too much time for the board of elections.  Ken Johnson mentioned that if a candidate does not have enough signatures that person could not go back out and obtain the needed number of petitions, however, if a pre-check is done a candidate could have their petition signatures pre-checked and if they are short of the required number the petitions could be handed back to the candidate who can then go back out and get the sufficient number of signatures. 

Mabel Jasper raised the question on what the downside is for the additional 5 days.  Richard Horvath mentioned if there is a 5 day review of candidate petitions it would add an additional ten days to the overall process.  The Board of elections would prefer to mirror other cities instead of going through the additional process of reviewing petitions. 

There is the concern that you assume that people know about those tools according to Bill Callahan in regards to the petition signatures.  Two commission members mentioned that they would change their vote on this particular proposal.

For proposal 15, there was a discussion on the tally sheet in regards to recording the votes from an election.  Ken Johnson mentioned about the problem of missing ballots and why it is important to count the tally.  Bill Callahan mentioned that he agrees with the proposal. 

Patrick Mangan raised the question if all of these proposed changes to the charter can be lumped into a general category.  Richard Horvath mentioned that you could bundle a number of these proposals together, but you don’t want to confuse the voters.  There is also the possibility that the state may feel that their boundaries are being overstepped by the city. 

Patrick Mangan mentioned that this is something we should think about.  The Secretary of State has the final say according to Horvath.  The more you put on the ballot to confuse people the more they will vote no according to Ken Johnson.  Robert Triozzi mentioned that once the Charter Commission makes its recommendations to the Council, the City Council is under no obligation to put these proposals on the ballot.  Richard Horvath mentioned that the Council could also put other recommendations on a future ballot if it so chooses.  Ken Johnson mentioned that we should give the council some direction and focus on the recommendations that the commission had reviewed.  Chairperson Cleveland  agreed with this suggestion by Ken Johnson. 

Proposal 28 –  Richard Horvath mentioned that there would have to be a charter change on the referendum for re-financing.  Matthew Silverstein mentioned why couldn’t there be a referendum on the other related areas, which would give the Finance Director what she wants.  Bill Callahan mentioned that if the market changes you would need to act quicker than 40 days. Greg Huth mentioned that he would prefer to have some flexibility included in this process so something unforeseen does not sneak up on anybody especially in the area of bond financing.  Richard Horvath mentioned that there is a need to do more research on the refinancing issues.  Bill Callahan mentioned that he is concerned about the changes in the process that do not refer to a specific contract.  Horvath mentioned that he could revise the proposal and speak to the finance director about refinancing.

In regard to proposal 39, Bill Callahan raised the question on what this will do and wants to have more discussion  about departmental powers.  Patrick Mangan also agrees with this.  Horvath mentioned that if the commission is confused about this proposal, Director Bob Brown could be brought back before the commission to further explain the proposal or the commission could just vote on this.  Roosevelt Coats mentioned that he agrees with Horvath on this point.  Callahan mentioned that there are some proposals that may not be discussed, because the members have taken a position, there should be some formality where the Commission can look at those recommendations that need to be discussed more so or move on and vote yes or no on that specific proposal.

Richard Horvath concluded his presentation and will begin to compile the tally on the next 45 proposals that the Commission and the various sub-committees have reviewed.  Bill Callahan mentioned that at some point maybe two weeks from now, that the Commission should have an agenda to revisit those proposals with close votes and if there can be a review of those proposals where a commission member may want to raise an issue or discuss further.  Coats mentioned that if there is any issue that a person is concerned about it is raised anyway during the regular Commission meetings.  Callahan wanted to set up a specific time in order to allow someone to address concerns or issues they may have regarding specific charter proposals.

Patrick Mandan mentioned that a list could be sent to the administration on some of the charters recommendations and to see what they suggest, which would provide valuable feedback.

Chairperson Cleveland then moved towards receiving an update from the different subcommittees.

Roosevelt Coats mentioned there have been several meetings of his subcommittee in regards to recall, changing the primary election date and campaign finance reform.  Coats also indicated that his subcommittee will look at the rightsizing of City Council.

Subcommittee reports were made during this time.

Colleen Gilson and several other Commission members raised the question about having other members involved in the sub-committee when the rightsizing issue is examine, because many of them have their own ideas as to how this should be done.  There are other members that are interested in being involved in this discussion. 

Rightsizing of City Council was mentioned by Matthew Silverstein who indicated that there are many people who would like to look at this issue. Silverstein mentioned that we need to be able to tell people when we are going to discuss this issue.  Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that we need to get the information first before we can proceed on examining the rightsizing issue. 

There was a comment made regarding the philosophical issues that need to be discussed before we get the numbers and there are conceptual issues that are in need of discussion in regards to the rightsizing issue.

Bill Callahan mentioned that we need to have a meeting on this the week after next and we need to think hard about what we are discussing and there has been only one proposal that was sent in via e-mail in regards to the rightsizing issue.

The Safety Director will be coming back to respond to Fire Local 93’s response to the port control fire proposal. There will also be a review of the other charter proposals.

Chairperson Cleveland indicated that the public hearings will be held on June 18th at the Cuyahoga Community College Tri-C Metro Campus 6:00 PM and on June 24th at the Gunning Recreation Center, 6:00 PM.  The last public meeting will be held on June 26th at the Harvard Community Center at 6:00 PM. 

Chairperson Cleveland indicated that she will be speaking with Mr. Dykes as soon as possible to see where he is at in the analysis of the census and demographic data as it relates to the rightsizing of Council and when he can come in to update the Charter Commission on his progress.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 AM by Chairperson Cleveland.