Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates council powers, residency and vacancy rules; law director asked to draft charter language
Summary
Cleveland Heights' Special Committee of the Whole reviewed proposed charter changes covering council candidate residency, when a vacancy is official, virtual meeting rules and council investigatory/subpoena powers and directed the law department to draft implementable language for later review.
Cleveland Heights' Special Committee of the Whole spent the meeting reviewing proposed Charter Review Commission language on council powers and related procedural items, and asked the law director to draft ordinance- and charter-level text for the next review cycle.
The discussion covered several discrete items the committee asked the law department to prepare for formal consideration: increasing the candidate residency requirement to 12 months, clarifying when a vacancy becomes official (and whether the vacancy clock starts on notice, receipt of a resignation letter, or council acceptance), explicit virtual-meeting attendance and voting rules, and whether the charter should more clearly state council investigatory and subpoena power.
Why it matters: the committee agreed these are foundational rules that will affect election eligibility, how quickly vacancies are filled and how council can compel evidence or testimony when conducting oversight. The law director was given direction to research statutory backstops and produce draft language the committee can convert into legislation and — if needed — ballot questions.
Committee members repeatedly emphasized that some of the questions can be addressed now by ordinance, while others may require charter text to avoid future ambiguity. Law Director Bill Hanna told the committee “currently that is addressed by ordinance,” and recommended the law department produce a fuller report and draft language explaining options for (a) requiring a written resignation, (b) specifying when the vacancy clock starts, and (c) any enforcement mechanism tied to state law (he cited ORC provisions). Councilman Cobb, who said he had earlier expressed concern about abuse, told colleagues “there is a need for us to be able to have subpoena power” under some circumstances; the committee asked Hanna to research ORC 705.21 and other controlling law and return with options.
On virtual meetings, Hanna recommended buttressing home-rule authority in the charter to permit remote attendance and voting where council chooses, but leaving flexibility so a future council could impose restrictions by ordinance. Several members said they want permissive charter language so a member who attends virtually can count toward quorum and vote if the council so ordains; others said the charter should leave room for a future council to limit remote voting if warranted.
The committee agreed to ask the law department to prepare draft amendments and to return sample ordinance language by the next review milestone so the body can decide what to send to voters and what to adopt by ordinance.
The meeting adjourned after the committee set timing goals for a legal draft in May and draft legislation in June in order to meet a planned November ballot timeline.
Ending: The committee did not adopt final charter language at this meeting; it directed the law department to research statutory interfaces (including ORC 705.21), draft proposed charter and ordinance text addressing vacancies, remote participation and subpoena/ investigatory authority, and return for a follow-up review.
