North College Hill charter reviewers discuss public performance reviews, vacancy appointments and proposed wording changes

North College Hill Charter Review Committee members spent most of their meeting debating whether to write routine, public performance reviews and clearer vacancy-appointment procedures into the city charter, and proposing several specific wording changes to administration sections of the charter. Committee members repeatedly emphasized transparency and cited practical constraints of a part-time mayoral office.

The committee discussed adding a requirement that the mayor perform and publish an annual evaluation of senior appointed officials, including the city administrator, and making some internal administrative checklists part of those reviews. "I did a 60 day. And so then we'll do another, a yearly," Mayor Nichols said when asked about the current frequency of reviews, describing a 60-day initial review followed by yearly reviews barring problems. Committee members framed the change as a way to make existing practices less ad hoc and more consistently available to the public.

Why it matters: The committee is drafting recommendations the City Council could place before voters. Members said they must deliver recommendations to City Council by May, leaving only a few meeting hours to complete draft language. Any charter amendments that council forwards to voters must be approved or rejected by the electorate as a package, a fact members cited as a constraint on what and how much the committee should recommend.

Key proposals and debate

Performance evaluations — scope and publication: Committee members proposed adding mandatory, periodic, public performance reviews for senior appointed roles (city administrator, finance director, police and fire chiefs, public works director). Some members suggested a general requirement that the mayor "shall" perform an evaluation each calendar year and publish results, while others warned that changing reporting relationships in the charter could require broader structural revisions to the form of government. Members also proposed building objective checklists into reviews so missed statutory or administrative obligations (for example, finance reporting deadlines) would be reflected in evaluations.

Appointment and approval of the city administrator: Several members recommended changing charter language so the mayor appoints the city administrator with not only the "advice" of council but the "advice and approval" of council. Advocates said that would give the elected legislative body a formal role in confirming a senior executive. Others cautioned that altering that relationship could conflict with the charter's existing separation of executive and legislative functions and might require more extensive rewriting than a single clause.

Vacancy and appointment process: The committee reviewed Section 3.07 of the charter and explored alternatives to the current, party-committee-first approach for filling council vacancies. Options discussed included: (1) retaining the county central committee role where applicable, (2) requiring full council vetting and a public interview process before appointment, or (3) specifying a standing council-appointed interviewing panel (for example, the president of council plus three members) to consider applicants. Members pointed to neighboring local practices and Ohio school-board vacancy rules (described generally in the meeting as state law that allows remaining board members to fill vacancies by majority vote) as models for a council-centered approach.

Other suggested wording and administrative edits: Committee members and legal advisors recommended several charter-text edits they said would increase clarity or tighten limits, including replacing "may" with "shall" in selected administrative provisions, requiring the city administrator to make certain designations "in writing" to council and the mayor, adding the word "findings" alongside "facts" in required purchase-and-contract reports, and lowering a purchasing threshold currently described in the code as $75,000 to $50,000 (the group proposed this as a policy choice to increase oversight of larger contracts).

Process and constraints: Committee members and the committee ttorney advised the group to remain mindful of the charter's role as an enabling document and to avoid prescribing day-to-day operational tasks that would be better handled by ordinance or policy. Several speakers urged the committee to focus on high-level structural changes (the "shell" or framework) rather than writing granular personnel rules that could complicate routine city operations or require frequent amendments.

Outcome and next steps: The meeting produced no formal motions or votes. Members agreed to gather more information and to refine draft language. One member said they are working to compile a list of charter amendments beyond the last five years and expected to share that in a future meeting. The committee expects to meet at least once more before making final recommendations to City Council.

Ending: The committee chair adjourned the meeting and said the group will reconvene in two weeks to continue drafting language and narrowing recommended charter changes.