Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rules Of Procedure Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gahanna appeals board adopts streamlined procedural rules but retains Article 11 authority to request city staff
Summary
The Property Appeals Board adopted proposed amendments to its rules of procedure (Rules-001-20) that shorten some timelines, but the board voted to keep Article 11 intact so members may request additional city staff presence under existing procedures.
The Gahanna Property Appeals Board voted April 29 to adopt proposed amendments to its Rules of Procedure (Rules-001-20) while preserving Article 11 language that allows the board to request that city officials or staff be present for hearings.
City law department reviewer Ms. Tamelaarison told the board she had reviewed rules for all city boards and sought to harmonize timelines and language; one explicit change proposed was reducing several deadlines from seven business days to five. She also proposed removing a provision that would allow the board, in advance, to call additional city staff to testify because the law reviewer did not "fathom a situation where there would be a need for someone from another department than the one that was relevant for the appeal." The city attorney submitted the proposed amendments for board review.
Board members debated whether removing the advance-request authority would limit the board's ability to gather relevant information. Board Member Moran said, "to limit the authority of a board that is intended to create transparency in a process for the citizens of Gahanna goes against what we were created to do," and said she would oppose any change that reduced the board's discretion to request witnesses. Board Member Smith asked whether the board should retain the option to request additional witnesses in specific cases, and other members raised practical concerns about availability and open-meetings constraints.
After discussion the board proceeded in two steps: first a motion to adopt the proposed changes as submitted, and then an amendment to retain Article 11 as currently written (i.e., to remove the proposed red-line changes in Article 11). The roll-call vote on the motion to keep Article 11 in place passed (Smith — yes; Moran — yes; Polier — yes; Rourke — yes; Haines — yes). The board then adopted the rules as amended on a subsequent roll call (Smith — yes; Rourke — yes; Moran — yes; "Holly A" — no; Haines — yes), and the chair declared the motion carried.
The adopted revisions standardize timelines across boards (notably changing seven business days to five in several places) while preserving the board's existing authority under Article 11 to request that city officials or staff appear. Clerk Clark and staff clarified that requests for additional personnel should be communicated to the chair or clerk in advance (the board discussed 48-hour notice as a practical guideline) and that availability of officials could require continuance or rescheduling.
The board's action updates procedural timelines but leaves in place the board's discretion to seek relevant witnesses, subject to practical scheduling and open-meeting considerations.
