Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:49 AM and went over the agenda and indicated that the Commission proceedings will begin with the EMS CARE union. Stephen Palek, President of the CARE union came to the table to address the Commission about the CARE union proposal. CARE union Attorney Susannah Muskovitz was also present. Chapter 25 was mentioned and Stephen Palek wanted to comment on this particular chapter. Palek indicated that he would like to see Cleveland EMS put into the City charter. Susannah Muskovitz the CARE attorney spoke to the Commission about the history of EMS and provided an overview to the Commission. Cleveland EMS was one of the first emergency units in the city of Cleveland according to Susannah Muskovitz, who then proceeded to go over the history of EMS which dates back to 1974. Susannah Muskovitz mentioned how a grant was provided to EMS. Ordinance 910-75, which expanded the grant after it was awarded to the EMS division was also mentioned. Susannah Muskovitz talked about and highlighted EMS accomplishments such as the establishment of the red center, AVL monitoring of ambulance units, various upgrades that have been done on EMS ambulance units. The EMS call volume is estimated to be 85,000 annually. Susannah Muskovitz mentioned that she would like to see EMS recognized in the city charter as an equal partner in the Public Safety Department. This would have no impact on cost of the operation and would institutionalize the EMS division. Since 1990 there have been four studies done on Cleveland EMS and Susannah Muskovitz went over each of the studies, which were conducted by former Cleveland Mayor Michael White, Cleveland City Council and former Public Safety Director James Draper. Former Mayor Michael White had implemented the EMS Advisory Task Force Group to study the EMS Division. The Task Force had recommended that the EMS division be maintained and kept as a third service operation. The Task force had provided other recommendations to improve the overall operation.
Cleveland City Council had produced two EMS reports in 1991 and 1997, and in 2002 Former safety director James Draper had also prepared a report. All three of these studies mentioned that EMS should remain a third service entity. Susannah Muskovitz mentioned that EMS should be recognized and included in the charter.
Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that the Charter Commission would like to receive copies of EMS information that the CARE Union has in its possession.
Anton Farmsby asked why no action was taken in regards to putting EMS into the Charter back in 1988. The answer that was provided was that EMS was a young service at that time (13 years old).
Farmsby asked if the firefighters were providing emergency medical service delivery and if the charter proposal would affect their operation. Farmsby was told that it would not affect the fire division.
Kevin Kelley mentioned that EMS functions as a separate service, and from time to time there have been discussions about merging it with fire. Why is it so important to put this EMS into the charter?
Susannah Muskovitz mentioned that by putting EMS into the charter it brings closure to the issue of merging both the EMS and Fire divisions into one entity. Kevin Kelley mentioned that if nothing changes in the future would it bring closure to that issue.
Bill Callahan mentioned that there are a number of departments that are not in the charter that are doing a fine job for the city, and asked if the question regarding EMS is something of a political controversy and is it the possibility of the administration reorganizing things in the future should the need dictate. How does this affect the performance of the division?
Susannah Muskovitz referred to the studies that recommended that EMS remain independent especially the first study that was done in 1990 by the White Administration.
How is the absence of EMS being in the charter affects the performance of EMS? – Question raised by Bill Callahan.
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that these studies were done because of the suggestion by the fire department to merge its operations with EMS.
Pat Mangan commented about the four studies that were done on EMS and raised the question about what role did Jim Majer have in this process, where was he working at that time. It was commented that Mr Majer was working in both EMS and Public Safety. If Administration and Council were to do a joint study and came up with a merger recommendation between the two divisions would this be something that EMS would support? Susannah Muskovitz mentioned that in other systems that have combined services the fire operations portion would place greater emphasis on obtaining resources for their division instead of EMS and emergency medical service delivery. The emergency medical care service delivery would suffer.
Pat Mangan mentioned that medical service is the key to the fire department.
Phyllis Cleveland asked the question about who would control the operation if there was a merged system. Susannah Muskovitz mentioned that call volume for EMS is very high, and the ambulances are running constantly.
Safety Director Martin Flask and Assistant Director Laura Palinkas came to the table to comment on the proposal along with EMS Commissioner Edward Eckart. Director Flask mentioned that over the past thirty years he has seen the division of EMS grow to become an outstanding service. The Mayor and the Administration support the continuance of an independent EMS service and an amendment to include EMS in the charter is not necessary. EMS Commissioner Edward Eckart also agreed with Director Flask and mentioned that at one point in his career, he would have supported placing EMS in the charter, but now with the challenges that the city faces, should there be any reorganization in the future in order to maintain the required level of services, it may be difficult to reorganize if you were to put EMS into the charter.
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that he does not think that the charter offers the same protection as the state charter. Coats mentioned that if any division needs to be reformed, we need to do that should the need arise.
Director Flask mentioned that there may be opportunities that may present themselves such as merging training between the two divisions, combining purchasing resources, and mentioned that placing EMS into the charter could become a potential obstacle to the city.
Ken Johnson asked why EMS is doing this. Director Flask mentioned that in the past there have been discussions over the last 15 years about fire and EMS merging and this may be a concern to the EMS division and the CARE union. Director Flask does not think this is necessary, placing the EMS division into the charter.
Anton Farmsby raised the question as to what are some of the challenges of merging EMS with fire or keeping EMS as a stand alone entity and why do the merger issue keeps coming up every 5 years.
Commissioner Eckart mentioned that nationwide the majority of EMS systems are fire based. There are 20 to 25 cities comparable to Cleveland that has EMS systems that were put together as a stand alone service and they are working well at this time. Commissioner Eckart also indicated that the number of fire suppressions across the country have decreased over the years and in order for the fire fighters to maintain the need for their services, they are trying to absorb the EMS systems in those cities where the operation is a third service or if a private provider is providing the service. Commissioner Eckart mentioned that when the merger discussions come up it can become a distraction and serves to create tension between the EMS and Fire employees and both unions.
Commissioner Eckart does not foresee any problems if the charter amendment were not to be approved by the Commission.
Pat Mangan asked the question regarding pay parody between EMS and police employees. Director Flask mentioned that they are comparable.
Ken Johnson raised the issue of pay parody and asked if this would put pressure on the administration in regards to bringing pay parody for the EMS division.
Director Martin Flask mentioned that this does not put any pressure on the administration in regards to pay rates and parody.
Greg Huth raised the question if a merger between two departments could occur without the authorization of City Council. Richard Horvath mentioned that Council and the Administration would both need to act to abolish or merge divisions. It was created that way in order to have an additional check in the process, which helps to enhance the check and balances of local government between the city council and administration.
Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland then asked Bill Callahan about his proposal and Mr. Callahan then proceeded to comment on his proposal. The reintroduction of this proposal was made in 1988 regarding the City Council reduction. Callahan raised the question are there ways that neighborhoods and councilpersons can improve on working to address neighborhood problems. What effect does reducing council have on the neighborhoods? The city today has far worse problems than it did 20 years ago such as foreclosures, crimes, vacant and abandoned properties and unemployment that take precedent over reducing the size of Council. What impact would the reduction have on helping the community deal with these issues and problems was a questioned that Callahan raised to the Commission. The City Council ombudsman is an advocate role and is an adaptive response to what people need because they are not getting services from the administration or city departments. You need to have somebody in the know who knows how to get things done.
Callahan also mentioned that you need to have somebody who can be held accountable to the people in regards to meeting the needs of citizens and making sure that city services are being provided to the neighborhoods and the councilperson is the one who fulfills that function.
If there is a council reduction of 19% (which takes into account a reduction of four council members from 21 to 17) it would have a significant impact on neighborhood services. Callahan propose that there be a structure of operation management set up in the administration, where you would have accountable management where the departments would be made accountable for how they provide and deliver services to the people. Those city departments would be responsible for developing community plans and working with the councilpersons, and monitoring the performance of the different departments to make sure that services are being provided to the citizens in an appropriate manner.
Bill Callahan mentioned that city problems are not going to go away if there is a council reduction and we would need a more planning oriented strategy and a transparent approach to deal with the many issues that face our city. Bill Callahan also mentioned that everything relating to city operations should go online in regards to department information, because the city now has the capability to do so.
The public record policy was mentioned and Callahan commented that there are some records that are not public such as the council study on Cleveland Public Power, and that there are elements in that record that are particularly protected. Callahan recommended that a review board look at these items and conduct an independent review.
Bill Callahan mentioned that there should be a better transparency process put into place in city hall.
Greg Huth mentioned about city documents that are kept in the departments, and noted how problems can occur in regards to transparency and scanning documents. This could require much staff time in regards to scanning documents and making information more transparent and available to the public.
Robert Triozzi commented that every department of the city has to identify those areas where more efficient ways can be developed to do business. Operation efficiency is also taking up this task as well where more effective ways can be found to keep better track of important documents and information.
Matt Silverstein asked if Callahan ever looked into what people do in other cities. What happens in cities where you have fewer councilpersons such as Boston and Detroit who have fewer councilpersons than Cleveland? Callahan mentioned of his experience in Akron and said that people in Akron felt that the council people did not have a job and that Cleveland was much more different and more involved in city affairs and neighborhood issues than Akron was.
Mabel Jasper suggested about the transparency situation and commented on what we should do and give these suggestions to Richard Horvath and then we can review it and vote on it. Horvath mentioned that he will also send the ballots out to all Commission members by e-mail. Jasper mentioned how is the collaboration between city council and administration enforced? It was mentioned that this would be enforced under the charter.
Matt Silverstein raised a question about the separate roles for Council which is serving the constituents in the community and making sure that the administration is providing services.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that additional neighborhoods would be picked up by the council members should a reduction in council occur, and this could also diminish councilmatic access for the some of those residents because they would have to know the new councilperson and this would take time.
Ken Johnson mentioned that 8 to 10 years ago when council boundaries were restructured there were 23,000 people per ward but the difference is that we have more problems now compared to what we had back then. This would require that the administration and council work together to address the many problems that the city is facing today.
Kevin Kelley briefly reviewed the activities of the Council rightsizing sub-committee and mentioned that Consultant Bob Dykes was present at that meeting and provided information on cities similar to Cleveland, and indicated that there is no right structure of council and there is no perfect system. According to Bob Dykes, who conducted a survey of 12 cities, there are three cities with an at large Council, four with a mixed at-large/ward based system and five with a ward based system only. Kelley mentioned that during the meeting of the sub-committee Bob Dykes had indicated that the issue of an at-large city council came up 20 years ago in Cleveland. Dykes had mentioned that there was an election held to vote on whether the City Council President should be elected at-large by the citizens of Cleveland. This specific measure was voted down according to Dykes.
Kelley mentioned that the estimated city population projection for 2010 population would be 420,000. The average population per ward has always been at the mid 20,000. The U.S. Census undercount was also discussed and mentioned that this problem occurs in urban areas especially. The State of Ohio can use census data or other population estimates in regards to changing district boundaries.
Kelley also commented about the function of the members of city council in some of those cities surveyed by Bob Dkyes and only 3 (ward-based system)of the 12 cities that responded said that the citizens call their councilperson first for city service delivery problems.
Kevin Kelley mentioned that the committee will step up the meeting schedule and will be holding another meeting on Friday, and suggested that there will be an open committee and wants to have as much participation as possible. Kelley also indicated that Bob Dykes will be at that meeting to go over more demographic data.
The other agenda items for that sub-committee meeting will be to look at the size of council, and when should the election take place will be discussed at that meeting.
Robert Triozzi asked how we evaluate these communities to determine if they run better than Cleveland. Is there a presumption in regards to this? Kevin Kelley mentioned that there is no presumption in looking at the other cities.
Robert Triozzi also asked if there were other cities that did go through a restructuring of its City Council and wanted to know how this worked out once the restructure was completed. Kelley mentioned that the most important data that was presented was the historical data on Cleveland which was most compelling.
Roosevelt Coats commented that the National League of Cities (NLC) often do studies regarding the size and operation of City Council in various cities. There is a model in Louisville where they went with a regional concept for representation. Roosevelt Coats mentioned that for the people in the community this restructuring of the council has not worked according to the citizens because the councilperson is not accessible.
Bridgeport Ct was also mentioned as having many councilpersons as Cleveland but the city has les population than the city of Cleveland. NLC also looked at Council size and found that there are on average 25,000 constituents per council members.
Large cities use mostly ward based districts according to the National League of Cities source. Pat Mangan asked if there would be a written report on this issue and that there should be some transparency and the information should be accessible to the public.
Richard Horvath then discussed the review of the charter proposed changes – Charter section 45 waterfront lands - Map was provided on the lakefront land that would be affected by the change. What is shaded on the map is city owned lakefront property. Matt Silverstein brought up that the darken areas south of the dotted line could be impacted by the proposal; yes it could according to Horvath.
The administration is still reviewing the waterfront proposal.
Coats asked if the proposal is looking at any land by the lakefront, Horvath mentioned that this would be city owned property.
There are also competing interests for the lakefront lands according to Horvath. The state has more of an interest the closer you get to the water.
Horvath then provided three documents pertaining to the charter recommendations where the Commission members would be reviewing and voting on the recommendations that have been presented to the charter commission.
Horvath then proceeded to go through the document to point out the various proposals that have come before the commission.
Charter proposed items 141 and 141A has no relationship to what is mentioned in proposal and this will have to be corrected by because of typographical error.
Three citizen proposals were also presented and this will be provided by Horvath. Jim Pelikan’s proposal was mentioned regarding the rightsizing of city council and a special city commission for reform, which was the second proposal and John Barnes submitted two proposals Global commission and public records proposal. Horvath will write these up and get them to the charter review members.
Pat Mangan mentioned that we go through the proposals and vote on these items and spend 5 minutes on each one. Horvath mentioned that there are also numerous competing proposals and that he could scan the documents that were presented by the proponents and opponents and the arguments to each and provide to the commission members for review.
The last document involved the civil service sub-committee consisting of Patrick Mangan, Anton Farmsby, and Greg Huth who reviewed the proposals pertaining to civil service. They provided information regarding their vote on the various proposals on civil service.
Callahan brought up prioritization of the proposals and mentioned that the Commission needs to identify which of these recommendations should be placed first. Robert Triozzi felt that this might be something that could be helpful to Council and there needs to be a reason as to why the Commission is making this recommendation in regards to priority.
In regards to the City Council rightsizing issue Richard Horvath mentioned that there will be a final document coming out dealing with council ward redistricting, council term of office, and the size of council, and there are currently several proposals on this.
The final report of the Charter Review Commission was also discussed and some mention was made of the formatting of the document. Horvath mentioned that we need to provide a reason as to why the recommendations are being accepted and Horvath will put this together. Horvath mentioned that he will also have to divide the proposals that have been accepted and rejected. A letter of introduction by the Chairperson and commission members’ comments would also be provided.
Robert Triozzi mentioned that we must identify the remaining work first and by Wednesday of next week provide any information to Richard Horvath in regards to voting on the proposed recommendations. It was also mentioned that the Commission may have to meet more frequently to finish this process.
Bring closure to these proposals and vote on many as we can.
Attorney Patricia Ritzert and a union member from the mechanical operator union came to the table to address the commission on a charter issue. The classification of the master mechanic position was mentioned and there is provision in charter 141 require prevailing wage rate for city employees. When the city lets contracts to private contractors they are required to pay prevailing wage. Removing this clause from the charter would take this required provision away from the city employees in regards to the prevailing wage. It was suggested that the touchstone of the prevailing wage rate be kept in the charter. This will also maintain high quality standard and will allow the city to bring on highly skilled employees to do the work instead of getting workers from private contractors because of the lack of an unskilled workforce in the city of Cleveland.
The union would prefer to keep the charter as it currently is instead of taking this clause out of the charter. City workers working for the city will be compensated under a prevailing wage rate who is working full time. This has been in the charter since the 1930s. Without this clause in the charter should collective bargaining efforts fail between the union and the city or if the civil service requirements change over time it could put city employees at risk to have their wages reduced to a minimum wage rate. This could happen under a future administration. Robert Triozzi mentioned if this would be an unfair labor practice.
Keeping the prevailing clause in the charter would ensure that the administration negotiates fairly.
Robert Triozzi mentioned that the agreement with the building trades council is presently structured where they receive 80% of the prevailing wage rate. It was mentioned that when collective bargaining agreements are in place it is the rate that is in effect because it is covered by the agreement.
If there is no agreement in place then the charter becomes the fall-back. Triozzi raised the question if there was no protection in place under state law? The only thing that is protecting the employees is the fact all employees in the city are paid the prevailing wage. The union mentioned that on expiration of the collective bargaining agreement between the city and union the employees could be at risk.
The state prevailing wage law does not provide protection for city employees and under the collective bargaining agreement there are procedures and by far those have been interpreted to maintain protection for employees. The language should be kept in the charter.
Triozzi mentioned that the city did not take away health insurance from the employees.
Coats mentioned that the language is in place now so what is the impact now? According to the Union the Collective Bargaining Agreement was not reached and the city had refused to maintain the status quo.
Chairperson Cleveland adjourned the meeting at at 12:27 PM.