Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:54 AM and Richard Horvath provided two documents to the Commission members, which were the current proposal recommendations that were presented and voted on and the voting tally of each Commission member. Mr. Horvath explained the items
in each of the documents to the Commission members.  The first document contains the vote of the commission members on each of the charter proposals that was presented.  The final report of the Charter Review Commission was also discussed.  Richard Horvath mentioned that there would be three parts to this report, which are the recommended charter changes of which there are 116 charter change recommendations.  The Commission had 74 charter sections approved.  There were 45 proposals that were not approved by the commission.

Robert Triozzi wanted to clarify a comment on proposals 113 and 141 that regarded the Buildings and Trades Union.  According to Triozzi, Mr. Loree Soggs of the Building Trades Council had objected to these proposals.
Matthew Silverstein commented on proposals 28 and 35, which reduces the number of days when an ordinance goes into effect and specifically mentioned the 40 to 30 days for certain bond issues.   Silverstein does not think that the reason is self evident, and if we do the proposal as discuss, it would still leave the protection to the citizens. Recommendation #28 and #40 was mentioned and Bill Callahan felt that the language needed to be revised.  Richard Horvath mentioned that the City Council will be the one to decide whether or not these proposals would go on the ballot.

The portion of the final report was covered and Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that if there are no final questions we should go to determining and setting our charter recommendation priorities.  Ken Johnson mentioned that we should meet one more time to go over the final document and publicly thanked Richard Horvath for his work on the Commission and in preparing and drafting the charter recommendations in legal form.

Patrick Mangan also thanked Richard Horvath for doing a tremendous job.

Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that the charter review process used by the Commission was thorough and not one meeting was missed.  Patrick Mangan mentioned that he appreciates the work that the Commission had done and hopes that the City Council will take as many of the approved recommendations as possible to the voters.

Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that this has been a very important process.  Ken Johnson mentioned that we have to look out for the public interest.  Bill Callahan mentioned that he agreed with the process that was used.  The proposals are good ideas, and hopes that City Council will take a hard look at the proposals that were approved by the Charter Commission. Roosevelt Coats mentioned that all of these issues are important, and
commented on how he went through each of the recommendations that were given to the Commission.  Ken Johnson mentioned that if too many of these recommendations are put on the ballot, the majority of items could go down to defeat by the public.  We need to take time on deciding, which of these recommendations needs to be presented.  Ken Johnson mentioned that it would be hard for city council to review all of the recommendations that the charter commission took six months to review and discuss.  According to Ken Johnson, City Council would not be able to conduct a thorough review in such a short period of time on the proposed recommendations.

Kevin Kelley raised the question on how many recommendations from the 1988 charter review commission made it onto the ballot once the process was completed. Richard Horvath mentioned that there were 9 proposals that made it to the ballot, and then there were other recommendations that were bundled together and placed on later ballots.  Horvath also mentioned that these current recommendations could be bundled together as a package on specific sections or topics of the charter.  Anton Farmby mentioned that we need to finish our work here and begin to prioritize the recommendations that the commission had approved.

Robert Triozzi mentioned that the first recommendations may not have a sense of urgency, and that the work conducted by the commission was very important.  The product will be handed to the council for review. Patrick Mangan mentioned that the most important point would be to group these recommendations in a certain way.  Ken Johnson mentioned that the grouping of the charter recommendations should be handled appropriately.  Ken Johnson also thanked Phyllis Cleveland for chairing the commission and commented on the good job that she had done during the review process.  Chairperson Cleveland indicated that she enjoyed the process and the people she had worked with on the commission. Phyllis Cleveland also mentioned how she would like to incorporate this approach and procedural process into the legislative committee of City Council once Council begins session this fall.  Roosevelt Coats mentioned that positive relationships have developed
throughout this process.  Patrick Mangan mentioned that in regards to prioritizing the recommendations, we should go around the table and ask each commission member to give their top ten proposals.

During the next thirty (30) minutes each member of the Charter Review Commission identified their top ten priority recommendations to the rest of the body.  At the conclusion of identifying the top ten priority
recommendations from each Commission member, Richard Horvath went through the most common priorities that were selected by the Commission members.  Richard Horvath mentioned that the top seven priorities that were selected by the Commission are the following; Small purchase (63, 64), Ward size (147), airport, (69 70), executive session of the council (27), campaign finance, design build, and charter review.  Beyond that there seems to be a difference in the other priorities that were selected by the Commission members.

Matthew Silverstein mentioned that he likes the two tier approach with the first and second 7 recommendation selections included, and the third tier recommendations could then be selected by each member.

Grouping the Charter proposal recommendations was discussed in relation to how they should be grouped.  It is important to state that these are the charter proposals that the commission members had selected after going
through 6 months of review and discussion on the charter.

Anton Farmby mentioned that we need to know what the criterion is going to be when the recommendations are turned over to the City Council for its review.

It was also suggested that a summary of what the top seven items were that the commission members felt was most important would be helpful to the council.  Robert Triozzi mentioned that we did not debate our selected list.

There was no consensus made regarding the items on the list.

Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the message to the Council from the Commission should be that there was thorough review and deliberation on the recommendations listed.

Ken Johnson mentioned that we need to take into consideration what we believe is best for the city.

Robert Triozzi passed out a document that showed what his views were on the charter recommendations.

City Council President Martin Sweeney addressed the Commission and expressed his appreciation to the Commission members on their efforts in reviewing the charter and thanked them for participating in the process.  Phyllis Cleveland was also praised for serving as chairperson of the Charter Commission.  Council President Sweeney also recognized Phyllis Cleveland's excellent qualifications and Richard Horvath's work and valuable assistance to the Charter Commission.

Council President Sweeney read a resolution of recognition for Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland for serving as the chairperson of the Charter Commission.  Council President Sweeney also distributed resolutions of recognition to
each Charter Commission member again thanking them for their service on the Charter Review Commission.

Richard Horvath mentioned about the priority ranking for the recommendations, which will include the top seven charter recommendations identified by the Commission.  Matthew Silverstein mentioned that the Commission members could submit their top seven lists to Horvath.  Silverstein mentioned if there could be a write-up of what the commission had done and if this could be included in the report as a separate section. Individual comments could also be incorporated into the report in another section.

Roosevelt Coats asked when the individual list would show up.  Richard Horvath then went through the format of the report.  Summary sheet of those priorities selected by the commission will be placed in the back of the
report.  All paper documents pertaining to the Charter Commission will be in the possession of the Public Administration Library and will be kept on-line until the end of the year.

Robert Triozzi commented that we do not want to make a big issue out of the priority lists, and Horvath mentioned that it would be part of the individual reports for each member.

Chairperson Cleveland asked if there were any further questions from the Commission, and thanked the staff for their support throughout the review process.

Chairperson Cleveland adjourned the meeting at 11:14 AM.