Charter review keeps military powers with mayor, moves police oversight to city manager and revises removal rules

The Charter Review Commission on March 11 reviewed draft revisions to Article 5 (mayor) and Article 6 (city manager) that keep military and peacekeeping powers with the mayor, shift routine supervision of the police department to the city manager, and remove fixed time frames from suspension and removal procedures to conform to Loudermill hearing requirements.

Commission staff said the changes reflect state law and practical operations and highlighted several cross‑references and transitional provisions that will be finalized before the commission submits a marked charter to city council.

Commission staff identified two Ohio Revised Code provisions as guiding the changes. Rebecca, commission staff, said that Ohio Revised Code Section 705.59 supports leaving military powers with the mayor and that the mayor is statutorily the “chief conservator of the peace,” citing Ohio Revised Code Section 733.03. "Military powers is not one of the listed duties of the city manager," Rebecca said in explaining why the commission kept that authority with the mayor. The discussion referenced New Albany as a cross‑reference for practice but noted New Albany uses the state statute rather than an identical charter clause.

On oversight of the police department, the draft revisions strike the current exception that places the police under the mayor and instead provide that the police and all other departments report to the city manager. Commissioners and staff framed the change as shifting day‑to‑day operational responsibility to the official who is on duty full time. The draft language includes a statement that the city manager serves at the pleasure of council, preserving council accountability.

Commissioners raised practical concerns about response and continuity if the police report to a city manager who lives outside the city or is otherwise unavailable. Participants noted the mayor must be a Sunbury resident under the current charter while the city manager is not required to live in Sunbury. One commissioner urged caution, saying requiring residency could reduce the applicant pool; others said residency or response‑time expectations are commonly handled in the employment contract rather than the charter.

The commission also discussed backup authority in emergencies. The draft already names the council president as acting mayor when the mayor is unavailable; commissioners considered whether to add express delegation for military or emergency powers to the city manager or council president if the mayor is incapacitated, but noted statutory limits on delegation and that the charter already provides for an acting mayor under Section 5.03.

Article 6 language about appointment, qualifications and acting city manager received several technical edits. Commissioners recommended changing references to a "letter" of designation to "written correspondence" to allow modern forms of notice. They also discussed why the assistant city manager is not automatically the acting city manager: because the assistant role is not always filled and may lack experience in some transitions. "We don't always have an assistant city manager," one participant said, noting the provision allows flexibility if the assistant position is vacant.

On suspension and removal of the city manager (Article 6.05), staff reported the draft was revised to track the U.S. Supreme Court's Loudermill principle that public employees must have an opportunity to be heard before termination. To avoid procedural traps, the draft removes strict time frames (for example, within five or 30 days) and instead requires council action by resolution that includes reasons and an opportunity to be heard. Rebecca summarized the approach: there will be an opportunity to be heard without hard timelines so the city is not constrained by potentially impractical deadlines while complying with Loudermill. The commission noted a pending Sixth Circuit question about whether paid administrative leave requires a hearing; that issue is unresolved.

The commission reviewed written public comments submitted by "Mister Holler," which were included in the meeting packet in red text; staff said those comments would be addressed in the relevant articles as the commission works through final edits. Commissioners also considered public comments related to new community authorities (NCAs). The commission agreed an NCA is a separate political body and that imposing charter obligations on the city to post NCA agendas or minutes is not appropriate; staff characterized that as a procedural matter better left out of the charter.

A separate discussion covered whether charter language should restrict officeholders from serving as delegates to political party conventions or holding party office. Dave, Law Director, urged caution about changing the current approach and said he and staff could not identify a compelling reason to remove the existing language; the commission left the provision in place but noted potential First Amendment concerns and the limited public visibility of party delegate roles.

The commission did not take a final vote to adopt the redlined charter language at this meeting; staff said a global vote to approve all redline changes will be taken once the office compiles all edits and confirms cross‑references before presenting the package to council. The meeting packet will include a marked copy for final review.

The commission approved the minutes of the previous meeting at the March 11 session. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Joe and seconded by Nancy; a roll call recorded seven "yes" votes and the motion passed. At the end of the meeting, a motion by Chris, seconded by Nancy, to adjourn passed on a 7‑0 roll call.

The commission will not meet during spring break and is scheduled to resume on April 8 to continue work on Articles 7 and 8 and remaining conforming changes.