North College Hill committee weighs which charter changes to send to voters

Members of the North College Hill Rules and Public Policy Committee spent the meeting deciding which recommendations from the Charter Review Commission to place on a city ballot and how to handle the drafting, timing and costs of that effort.

The question matters because several of the commission's recommendations would change the city's written charter and could have budgetary or administrative effects if approved by voters. Committee members noted a potential financial impact from renaming the city's finance manager to finance director, and raised procedural issues that must be resolved before ballot language is finalized.

Committee member Latonya Chichester opened the discussion by asking members to confirm whether the commission had strongly championed any particular change and to make sure the group knew the steps required to put charter amendments before voters. Chichester said she planned to send current meeting minutes to committee members so they could approve and post them in advance of the transition to the next committee chair.

Members agreed to ask the city's law director, Bill Deters, to draft the ballot language for whatever recommendations the council chooses to place on the ballot. Committee members discussed deadlines and logistics: a staff member said the Board of Elections process has changed and some notices can be emailed but that the overall sequence of steps and a likely August deadline would require the council to schedule special meetings to meet ballot deadlines. The committee also asked staff to confirm in writing whether notices must be mailed to every elector or may be emailed.

On the substance of the commission's recommendations, members focused on several items that drew repeated attention: changing the title of the finance manager to finance director (noted as potentially carrying a larger salary or classification implication), clarifying that the council exercises power over city finances through formal legislation (ordinance or resolution) and not ad hoc motions, and reconciling charter language with the city's civil service rules and the Ohio Revised Code. Chichester and other members said the charter as written contains language that could be read to allow hiring outside of civil service steps for police or fire, and said the charter needs to be brought into conformity with state law.

The group discussed a commission recommendation (section 4.03 in the draft report) to require the mayor to attend at least one council meeting per month and to require certain department heads to attend meetings so council can ask questions directly. Committee members said the recommendation as drafted lacked a time frame in some passages and suggested the ballot language be precise (for example, "one council meeting per month" rather than simply "one meeting"). The group also considered a proposed change to increase the mayoral residency requirement from three years to five years and discussed adding a requirement that mayoral candidates have prior service in some public or civic capacity; members did not reach a final decision and left those items for the full council vote on which recommendations to forward.

Committee members expressed concern about past practice in which financial matters were sometimes handled by motion or informal action instead of by ordinance or resolution, which makes historical record-keeping and legal review more difficult. Several members suggested tightening committee procedures, restoring thorough committee minutes or "committee notes" that explain legislative intent, and offering short training sessions for council members so they can recognize when an ordinance or resolution is required and how to follow required readings.

Procedurally, the committee agreed: (1) to have Bill Deters draft ballot language for the commission's recommendations; (2) that the council must separately vote on each recommendation to include it on the ballot; and (3) that special meetings may be necessary to satisfy the board of elections timetable if the council wants amendments on the upcoming ballot.

The chair closed the discussion by asking members to review the draft ballot language when it is circulated and to identify any items they do not want included before the council formally votes. The committee did not vote on any charter amendments at the meeting.

Ending: The law director will prepare draft ballot language and staff will provide written confirmation of Board of Elections deadlines and any mailing requirements. The committee signaled it will hold special meetings if needed to meet the ballot calendar.