July 24, 2008
Charter Review Commission Meeting Agenda

I.            Report from the Council Size sub-committee

II.        Continued review of proposed charter change recommendations.

III.    New business

Charter Review Commission
Thursday, July 24, 2008

Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:45 AM, and Richard Horvath went over the current ballot count for each of the proposals that were submitted.  Horvath went over the ballots and commented that the final report for the Commission is in the process of being done and will provide a draft to each member once the report is completed.

The City recall topic is still an issue that is yet to be decided, and Horvath then proceeded to go over the proposal recommendations and vote counts that have been totaled so far.  (See document) In order for a proposal to successfully be approved by the Commission it must have 8 affirmative votes.

Bill Callahan mentioned that he voted yes on the complete repeal in Section 52 of the recall proposal where he meant to vote no, Colleen Gilson also mentioned this as well, and Pat Mangan also indicated the same.

Ken Johnson mentioned that the Clerk would keep a hard copy of published city council documents in the office, and if this was decided on and approved by the Commission.  Horvath mentioned that the Clerk would have to get a printed copy to the requester of such document if it were to be requested.

On proposal 58 Patrick Mangan and Mabel Jasper mentioned that they were voting yes on this proposal. 

On Proposal 60, Phyllis Cleveland and Mabel Jasper changed their votes to yes.

Proposal 68, which is the mandatory referral recommendation was discussed and Colleen Gilson changed her undecided vote to a no vote on this proposal. 

Proposal 61, which is legal correctness, was discussed.
Proposal 62, which pertains to the number of prosecutors for law department, was discussed by the Commission members.

The recommendation regarding the Purchasing Division’s $50,000 threshold received 10 affirmative votes to increase this to $50,000.  Mabel Jasper mentioned that she voted yes on $25,000 limit.   Pat Mangan suggested that on this issue the Commission should express its interest now.   There were 7 members who voted for the $50,000 threshold and 2 voted for $25,000.  Patrick Mangan mentioned that would change his vote to $50,000.

Proposal 64, where Council is authorized to increase the $50,000 threshold is passing so far.

Proposal 65, which pertains to cooperative purchasing, is passing so far.  Proposal 66 that allows city council to dispense with competitive bidding is passing so far.

Proposal 67, which would allow the public safety director to appoint more safety investigators for the police review board is passing.

Proposal 68, which recommends increasing the size of the police review board is presently passing.

Proposal 69 that pertains to the airport police force being under the control of the Director of Port Control presently has 9 yes votes.  The question arose as to whether there would be a police representative on the airport site.  Ken Johnson raised this question and expressed some concern about not having a police representative from the City’s Police Division at the airport. Kevin Kelley mentioned that this arrangement for security and safety out at the airport would work the same way that the CMHA police operates.  If there is a incident at the airport that involves police involvement such as security incident or crime an investigation of the crime would be conducted.  Ken Johnson mentioned that he would like to see the police chief be kept informed on any safety matter that occurs at the airport.  Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that structurally, the Cleveland police division should be over all safety activities.  Ken Johnson mentioned that we are creating two police departments, and Colleen Gilson mentioned that we are duplicating services and need to save resources and this is why she had voted no on this proposal.  Bill Callahan mentioned that he would change his vote to no and agreed with Colleen Gilson on this issue. 

Patrick Managan mentioned that it was his understanding that the airport has unique security needs that the police department cannot meet when it comes to airport operations.  Anton Farmby mentioned that there should be someone at the airport to report to the police chief and port control director. 

Ken Johnson mentioned that the chief of police needs to know what is going on at the airport because if this does not happen, it could be detrimental to the city.  Robert Triozzi mentioned that the police chief is aware of what is going on through the different memorandum of understandings with other communities in regards to police response and operations.  Ken Johnson mentioned that the airport is different and there needs to be a direct line of communication between the airport and the police chief. 

Kevin Kelley mentioned that the chief needs to be in control and under the airport arrangement there would be a police bomb squad operating on the site and the police would be conducting investigations at the site if crimes were to occur.  Homeland security considerations and requirements from the Transportation Security Administration must also be looked at because their requirements for airport security are different and may require more specific security operations and procedures.

Richard Horvath mentioned that the commission should decide on how the language should be written.  Anton Farmby mentioned that there should be someone from the police department assigned to the airport to provide information to the police chief on any incident as well as security activities that are taking place at the airport. 

Kevin Kelley suggested that there be a possible language provision for this section, where the airport chief has a mandatory relationship with the police chief.  Robert Triozzi mentioned that this approach should be used.  Ken Johnson mentioned that someone out of the chief’s office should be stationed at the airport to report activities to the police chief. 

Vicky Johnson questioned how this is done with other police departments especially in regards to jurisdictional matters and communications.  Ken Johnson mentioned that presently there is no communication standards incorporated.  Bill Callahan raised the question about the special police for the utilities department.  Richard Horvath mentioned that officers for the utilities department are only considered to be security guards. 

A person who has received a police commission is not the same as a law enforcement officer.  Kevin Kelley mentioned that the security guards function and report to the department of public utilities.  In regards to the special police they have to be reauthorized or re-commissioned every 6 months.  Bill Callahan questioned whether or not we know what we are trying to accomplish or get to in regards to this specific proposed recommendation. 

Bill Callahan raised the question if the law enforcement language that is in the charter is predicated by state law.  Pat Mangan provided examples on how the memorandum of understanding works between the different police agencies. 

There is legislation presently that authorizes a police operation at the airport, however according to Robert Triozzi, there are still some details that have to be worked out as it pertains to lines of authority.  

Anton Farmby mentioned that he likes the proposal, but there should be a check and balance system incorporated into the structure.  Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that the Commission needs to make a decision on this.  And if there are arguments about this from the members, put it in writing.  Colleen Gilson requested that she be provided a final voting tally on this specific issue.

Proposal 70, which pertains to the fire airport proposal was discussed.  Both Patrick Mangan and Mabel Jasper voted yes on this proposal making it 8 yes votes.  Colleen Gilson also voted yes and Phyllis Cleveland voted yes as well making it 10 yes votes in total.

Proposal 71, which pertains to the reorganization of the fire command staff was discussed. Pat Mangan provided some proposed language to this proposal. Patrick Mangan mentioned that he was voting for Chief Stubbs proposal.  Mabel Jasper also indicated that she is voting yes on the Stubbs proposal as well.  Robert Triozzi mentioned that he is more uncomfortable with proposal 71, and that accountability should also be taken into consideration.  Colleen Gilson asked if what the fire chief is proposing could be done by legislation, Horvath mentioned that it could be done.  Gilson changed her vote to no on proposal 71 and 72. 

Ken Johnson mentioned that there should be definitive lines in the charter in regards to this.  Bill Callahan also changed his vote to no on both and Mabel Jasper changed her vote to yes on both proposals.

On proposal 71, there were 7 yes votes and 6 no votes.

On proposal 72 there were 8 yes votes and 6 no votes. 

On proposal 73 regarding the civil service rule on appeals there were 8 no votes on this proposal.

Proposal 75, Mabel Jasper voted yes and there are 13 yes votes on this proposal.

Proposal 74, which involves section change, there were 8 yes votes, and 1 no. Phyllis Cleveland and Vicky Johnson changed their votes to yes, and there are now 13 yes votes, according to a new tally that also showed additional yes votes.

Proposal 76, there were 11 yes votes 11.  Anton Farmby mentioned that a recommendation was made to allow civil service commission more time to conduct appeals and hearings.

On Proposal 77, Anton Farmby mentioned that the sub-committee was undecided on this proposal.  More clarification was needed according to Farmby. 

There was a short break given to the commission members by the Chairperson at 10:42 AM.

Robert Triozzi reconvened the meeting at 10:47 AM and Richard Horvath provided information on the size of Council and reapportionment.  Kevin Kelley also mentioned the council rightsizing issue and talked about the sub-committee meeting on the right-sizing, which had met on Friday, July 18th.

According the Kevin Kelley, the sub-committee had agreed that there was no persuasive argument in picking out a number for a right sized Council.  There was no persuasive argument to reduce the size of City Council.  Kevin Kelley provided an overview on the subcommittee meeting that took place last Friday.  

The sub-committee had recommended that the representation of council be divided where there would be 25,000 residents for each city council member.  In regards as to when such a reduction should take place in either 2009 or 2013.  We would need to look at reliable population estimates that would factor into whether this would be done in 2009 or 2013.  The reapportionment issue also came up and this was also discussed in detail.  Neighborhood lines and how to divide this by ward was also discussed. 

Mabel Jasper mentioned that her sub-committee had discussed the right-sizing issue as well and agreed with Kelley, but had proposed something different on one of the items. Jasper proposed that the City Council would represent a population from 19,000 to 25,000, and the elections should be held in 2013, since the 2010 census would already have been completed. 

Richard Horvath mentioned that you will not be able to redistrict with a range of population.  You would need to be within plus/minus 5% in order to be safe with the federal census bureau. 

Bill Callahan mentioned that another issue that was discussed was the statistical planning areas and how these should be defined.  Anton Farmby mentioned that there are only two wards that encompass two neighborhoods.  Mabel Jasper questioned whether children and newborns would count towards the population.  Richard Horvath mentioned that it would.  Robert Triozzi raised a question regarding the neighborhood and ward boundary adjustments. 

Kevin Kelley mentioned that neighborhoods are of varying sizes and boundaries so this is something that needs to be taken into consideration.  Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that with the foreclosure crisis and with neighborhood blocks being literally wiped out, where did these people go?  We need to find out where they are.  This is seen as a major concern. 

Robert Triozzi mentioned about the shared interests in regards to the neighborhoods and representation of Council, which may extend beyond your typical neighborhood street boundaries, we need to look more so at representation. 

Bill Callahan mentioned that the community development corporations are also important because they serve the neighborhoods and this could also be part of the identification of the neighborhood boundary process.  We should allow structure to accommodate this process. 

Robert Triozzi mentioned his concern about the mandate of neighborhood definition and boundary, there needs to be some variation on this.

Kevin Kelley mentioned that the recommendation of one councilperson per 25,000 residents was agreed upon by the sub-committee.  Richard Horvath then proceeded to discuss the ballot 147 – 147A dealing with how the wards should be determined.  Horvath explained both of these proposals.

Proposal 148, which recommended 17 council members with 3 at-large and the various different council structures, was presented.

Proposal 149 proposed 15 council members and 1 council president who would be elected at large.

Proposals 150 to 52 contained different council size.

Terms and election of city council members were in proposals 152 through 154.

The reapportionment and 2009 election was also discussed

Horvath also mentioned that he could draft language regarding best efforts in regards to neighborhoods and reapportionment when it involves the redrawing of ward lines. 

Proposal 145 was mentioned in regards to looking at resources.

Colleen Gilson mentioned a deadline for the charter commission proceedings.

Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that we need to have a report to the City Council President on July 31st.  Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that there will be a meeting on Monday morning at 8:30 AM and there may be another meeting on Thursday morning as well. 

Richard Horvath also provided a draft recommendation ballot summary that will be included in the report and explain each particular section to the Commission. 

John James is working on an executive summary with the Chairperson to look at the contents.  Horvath also encouraged all Commission members to provide comments for the report. 

Patrick Mangan mentioned how the Commission can prioritize the top ten charter recommendations.  Cleveland mentioned that maybe the commission could think about this over the weekend and come in on Monday with their choices. 

Horvath mentioned what ten charter recommendations that council should place on the ballot.  Callahan mentioned that each member make their individual selection of their top ten recommendations and then collate all of the selections and look at which of the recommendations came in at the highest number and to rank them according to frequency. 

Robert Triozzi mentioned that are we taking away from Council the right to make its decision regarding the charter proposal and should the commission look at putting a priority into grouping categories.  Horvath mentioned that some of the charter issues may not get much attention because of the 2008 Presidential campaign. 

Cleveland mentioned that City council may need to convene a special hearing to go over the recommendations and there may be several more meetings.

A citizen from the audience spoke about the redistricting of city council wards, and asked why can’t you leave the wards the same and give the councilperson additional wards.  Agree that the city’s population should dictate the size of council and we need to have a ward adjustment strategy where each councilperson could pick up one or two wards.  Still have vacant properties throughout the city and many buildings are still there. An at-large councilperson will not know what is going on.  Also you would have to change the ward boundaries in another two years and this makes it very complicated.  The city is beginning to grow as more people are moving back into the city.

Chairperson Cleveland adjourned the meeting at 12:02 PM.