Charter Review Commission
March 6, 2007
Agenda
1) City Council and the legislative process, excluding the size of Council and ward redistricting (Chapter 5)
2) Discussion of advertising through public notice
If time allows
3) City Departments and Commissions, excluding Finance, Safety and Civil Service; City Planning, Board of Zoning Appeals, Law, Utilities and Health (Chapters 11, 13, 15, 19 and 23)
Commission Meeting
March 6, 2008
Chairperson Phyllis Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:45 AM. Cleveland indicted that Council President Martin Sweeney will be coming in to speak to the Commission about City Council issues that will be on the Commission’s agenda.
Richard Horvath provided copies about the election recall process in other cities. Horvath explained the recall procedure to the Commission that the different states and cities use when they are recalling elected public officials. Horvath also mentioned that for non-charter localities only 15% signatures shall be required, he also indicated that Cincinnati and Shaker Heights presently has no recall process. Cleveland Charter – section 16 – 30 days to get signature and not less than 20% of those who voted in the last election.
Kevin Kelley spoke about the time limit for recall, which in his opinion should be a designated time period towards the of the term. Kelley would recommend that it be 12 months or first 180 days of the elected official’s term in office and the last 365 days.
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the charter also allows for special circumstances, what if the council should decide not to do anything? Kelley mentioned that it would be 120 days. Kelley also pointed out that Council can always use Rule 29 to expel a member.
Ken Johnson raised an issue about mental capacity, if a public official should not be working in their full mental capacity. Judge Jasper mentioned clarification on the any grounds provision as it relates to the recall issue and as to what behaviors or actions could someone be subject to a recall. Richard Horvath mentioned about malfeasance being an example of actions that could lead to a public official being recalled by the public. Kevin Kelley mentioned that by laying out the ground for recall can run the risk of bringing political elements to it. This can make it become subjective and opens up questions of ambiguity. Kelley indicated that recall should be left to the people and we should increase percentages of signatures needed for any recall petition as well as narrowing the recall window, and wait until the next election.
Ken Johnson mentioned that failure to perform your duties as an elected official is one of the major reasons for being subjected to a recall however, the public may have a different opinion on what it is an elected official is suppose to do.
Richard Horvath mentioned that there could be any ground that the public can have for a recall petition. Ken Johnson feels that the affidavit is a good idea. Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that a sub-committee will look at this issue further and make it’s recommendations to the commission on it has completed the research.
Council President Sweeney and Jay Westbrook were present to discuss the Council provisions to the Charter Review Commission. Discussion focused on Campaign finance reform.
Sweeney stated that the current campaign finance provision in the Charter is ineffective. The $1,000 campaign contribution cap is helpful but it is circumvented most of the time by the party. Spending limits was also discussed and it was mentioned that approximately $60,000 is used for council races.
Sweeney discussed the ineffectiveness of voluntary limits since, in practice, these limits are not usually agreed to. The result is more paperwork and hoops to jump through without purpose. Sweeney also indicated that the former Mayor Michael White, who created the campaign finance provision, had exceeded the campaign finance cap and was fined only $50. The Cleveland voters decided that campaign finance was the way to go and supported such policy.
It was mentioned that City Council members do not raise that much campaign money. There are about five or six members of council that can raise money for their campaigns. Sweeney mentioned that the Council Leadership fund is for the entire council, it is not for individual council members. In regards to the issue of campaign finance reform laws, it is not only today in regards to the decision that has to be made but a decision that will be have an impact for the next 20 years.
The City of Cleveland is the only city in Ohio that has campaign finance in the Charter. This is usually regulated by State Law and legislation.
Jay Westbrook added that in 1993-94 the question was raised as to whether state election laws adequately address the issues of local elections. The laws make us report what we have already filed and the commission had a hard time maintaining active engagement in the process.
After 1993 municipal election the former Mayor Michael White had circulated petitions to bring a charter change in the city of Cleveland. The circulation of the petitions failed to meet the guidelines and one of the circulators was found guilty of fraud. Westbrook indicated that the former Mayor was using political clout and felt that this issue of campaign finance should still be pursued and the Plain Dealer agreed with the Mayor on this issue. The former Mayor and Council got together to work this issue out and this is what you have now, the current campaign finance law.
Jay Westbrook indicated that this was a correction or remedy that was politically driven and is not utilized and the commission should examine this. Council elections are very difficult to raise money for. There would be some leveling of playing field if everyone had to go to same municipal campaign financing law. People voluntarily say no because they do not want to be held to a spending limit.
Westbrook mentioned that City Council members Roosevelt Coats, Ken Johnson, Michael Polensek, Fannie Lewis were present during that time when the campaign finance law was being discussed. Council President Sweeney felt that the current structure is useless, the $1,000 cap was mentioned and Sweeney mentioned that he would like to have some kind of campaign finance cap. Sweeney indicated that if there is no cap, one person could have different interests groups support their candidacy, which also comes into play and this could cause problems. Suggestion for debate to increase the cap would be supported.
Anton Farmby asked for clarification on PAC regulations. Sweeney explained PAC regulations and the Council Leadership Fund, which keeps the council membership intact. Sweeney provided examples of Council members Martin Keane and Joseph Santiago, where the fund was used to support them. This leadership fund is used to help keep council members in office.
Jay Westbrook provided more insight into both the mayor and council and set of principles requiring g legislative action. The $1,000 decision to limit individual campaign contributions that council made in 1993-94, is something that the commission should examine and make a decision on. Sweeney would support this and suggest that the Commission examine this specific topic.
Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that comes down to the fact that a lot of decisions are regulated by state law, and we continue to duplicate such efforts. Sweeney also commented that the state says there is $10,000 limit for PAC contributions.
Bill Callahan raised the question as to whether the contribution limit should be a mandatory repeal and if you should have those limits should PAC be accepted. Kevin Kelley mentioned that Council set the $1,000 limit; the Charter permits council to set the limit.
Jay Westbrook added that we need to set the issue for letting the state control this. It was also mentioned that there is another issue about PAC contribution to candidate is regulated by ordinance, the state law mentions that PACs have the ability to operate as third party entities. The Council Pac operates under the full authority of the state. A PAC can receive $10,000 dollars from individuals. Kevin Kelley mentioned that PACs are governed by state law, and you cannot regulate a PAC by charter, recommend that we stay with campaign finance reform law local.
Jay Westbrook advised the commission to go back and review what happened in 1993 and 94 and find out what they were trying to fix. In 1993 the Mayor had no opposition and everyone in Council was re-elected, out of the blue came this proposal by Mayor White, this came out of nowhere. The major question that arose was what is it that we are trying to address? This is the major question that the Commission needs to examine.
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that we need time to look at this issue. Ken Johnson indicated that in 1993 it was a partisan political issue that the Mayor had brought to the council. Sweeney recommended that the Commission look at this and make a recommendation and indicated that there should be a cap.
Colleen Gilson mentioned that if we get rid of it, it could pose problems to the issue of campaign finance reform, which is now a big issue. The question was also raised if Cleveland City Council is periodically reviewing this?
Kevin Kelley mentioned duplication of work, and nightmare for law department to review.
Ken Johnson stated that in 1993 city council was put into position that it would be against campaign reform if it did not enforce it.
Sweeney mentioned that whatever decision is made by commission should not consider the politics. Council will then explain why the decision was made and nature behind the decision to voters.
Horvath explained that state law has limits on PAC, but requirement for council limit $1,000 is not enforced by board of election only fair campaign finance commission, which is all local.
Kevin Kelley mentioned that enforcement is something the commission needs to look at.
Ken Johnson mentioned that we have to be very careful in enforcement and would like to see this in the hands of the legislative body.
Sweeney asked if there were any other questions outside of campaign finance reform.
Farmby mentioned local level contribution to council such union making contribution, how does it pertain to finance law? Westbrook mentioned that in-kind contributions do count according to the campaign finance law. Sweeney explained that there must be coordination between a campaign and an organization for an organization’s political activities to be considered in-kind.
Westbrook hopes that the commission looks at the origin of the campaign law and to determine what was trying to be accomplished during that time.
Matt Silverstein mentioned Sec. 45 of the Charter, which deals with lakefront properties, is poorly written. He asked if city would have to take the sale of any city property on a waterway to a vote by the people? Cleveland indicated that it is a poorly written policy and the Commission may need sub-committee to look at this.
Silverstein asked if Council would prefer to have this put to the vote of the people to sell, lease, and land property? Sweeney explained that lakefront land is a valuable asset and he feels the people should be able to vote on its sale – land has never been sold. However, he also indicated that the City should/does lease property with legislative approval.
Bill Callahan asked if the Council has problems accessing information that can’t be made public. He mentioned that information was provided to council by public utilities on the 5 year capital improvement plan and issue of access to information was raised. The council has a right to go over and look at specific information and keep trade secrets and the issue of executive session was raised, which is something that Sweeney wants to promote.
Richard Horvath mentioned that trade secrets and other specific information is not available to the public but may be available to the Council. The challenge to council is how it gets such information when they can’t meet in private (executive session) and such information cannot be provided to the public.
Trade secret, security and personnel issues are those issues that Sweeney would like to see executive session for. As it stands, Council must be briefed in groups of no larger than three, in order to adhere to the law. Discussion on such topics in larger groups is impossible because of the open meetings laws.
Robert Triozzi mentioned that the campaign finance law in terms of what we want to see and expect needs to be addressed, we need to determine if there are built in advantages that may be unfair, if there are undue influences that could arise as a result of campaign finance and contributions. We need to define what it means to be in favor of campaign fiancé – these are issue that a sub-committee can look at. Do we have a system that is open and fair without any undue influence?
Judge Jasper raised campaign contributions question of someone giving money to their own campaign. Richard Horvath mentioned that there is no limit on that a person can provide as much money as they want to their own campaign. Triozzi mentioned that the sub-committee can look into campaign contribution issues.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that Kevin Kelley could look at chairing this specific sub-committee. Judge Jasper, Bill Callahan and Colleen Gilson are also on the sub-committee.
Greg Huth brought up topic of making plans for public meetings.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that public meetings could be held in conjunction with the town hall meetings that are held by Mayor and Council. The major topics such as downsizing council could take up majority of time for the meeting. This could take time away from town-hall meeting; we need to examine this further.
Katherine Samsa mentioned piggybacking on another meeting where Commission Members can provide a form at the beginning of a meeting, to be collected at the end. The form would allow citizens to provide input in an organized way.
Phyllis Cleveland expects to make a decision on this within two weeks.
Richard Horvath mentioned that the city directors are ready to come in and make recommendations and the Commission could make the plan on public meeting in the meantime, look at some plan in April.
Vickie Johnson would like to add another 30 minutes to the weekly meetings, because we don’t have enough time. Having the meetings go to 10:30 AM would be helpful, because we can get more accomplished.
Next week’s agenda will include Richard Horvath – law department, city planning and dept of finance, they all want to come in and speak to the Commission. The law dept can serve in as filler but the planning and finance departments can go first, and we can use the directors’ time more effectively.
Chairperson Cleveland adjourned meeting 10:20 AM.
|