Charter review panel debates how North College Hill appoints and staffs city administrator

Charter Review Commission members in North College Hill spent most of their April 23 meeting focused on how the city hires and backs up the city administrator, discussing changes to appointment authority, interim coverage and minimum qualifications.

Commissioners said the discussion was prompted in part by frequent turnover in the chief administrative post; members noted the city has had four city administrators in three years. The panel considered language that would require the city administrator to be "appointed by the mayor with the advice and approval of a supermajority of council" and that the administrator "shall" be designated an acting administrator within a stated timeframe if a vacancy occurs, replacing the current draft language that says the mayor "may" make an acting designation.

The commission’s conversation placed those proposals in the broader context of North College Hill’s current government form. Members read Section 3.03 of the charter aloud during the meeting, noting it states the power of council is "legislative only" and the body does not appoint or confirm officers except as allowed by Ohio law. Commissioners discussed how adopting a requirement that the council approve the mayor’s choice for city administrator would move the city toward a council role more like a city-manager form of government and might require wider changes across the charter.

Members debated trade-offs. Supporters of adding a council approval step said it would give elected council members a formal way to weigh in after several administrative turnovers and would build a more stable administration that can execute long-term plans. Others said council input or formal approval could slow hiring in situations where a quick interim is needed for continuity; some members said the mayor already consults council in practice even if the charters' current wording is not always followed.

The commission also discussed changing Section 6.03, which currently lets the mayor designate an acting city administrator, so the mayor "shall" make that designation when a vacancy arises. Some commissioners urged adding a specific deadline for naming an acting administrator (examples discussed included 30, 45 or 60 days), while others opposed a hard time limit, saying a firm deadline could force a rushed appointment and that the mayor already typically names an acting administrator promptly.

Commissioners debated whether the charter should specify minimum qualifications for the city administrator and for the finance position. The commission identified Section 7.1 (which sets qualifications for the finance manager) as precedent, and several members recommended keeping a qualification standard for the city administrator but phrasing it broadly — for example, a "relevant degree or equivalent work experience" — so the provision would not block qualified candidates who come from the private sector or have nontraditional credentials. Members also proposed renaming the finance post from "finance manager" to "finance director" to better match duties described in the charter and department structure; the pay scale implications were noted as a separate administrative decision.

No formal motions or votes on charter text were recorded at the meeting. The commission agreed to continue the discussion at a follow-up meeting and to circulate reference materials (members referenced a white paper used by Cleveland Heights and a facilitator, Lawrence Culler) and internal documents to inform drafting. The panel scheduled a follow-up meeting for next Wednesday, same time and place.

The discussion centered on practical items the commission may include in proposed charter language: whether to require council approval for mayoral appointments of the city administrator, whether to change temporary appointment language from "may" to "shall" and whether to add a broadly worded minimum-qualifications clause and change the finance title to "director."