Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review Commission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council leans toward nine-member Charter Review Commission with seven appointments by council and two by mayor
Summary
Councilors debated how to appoint future charter review commissioners and whether the commission's size and appointment method should be written into the charter. Many members favored a nine-member panel and discussed a 7/2 split between council and mayor appointees.
Cleveland Heights council members debated the makeup and appointment process for future Charter Review Commissions during a Feb. 22 Committee of the Whole meeting, with many councilors endorsing a nine-member panel and a split that would allocate seven appointments to council and two to the mayor.
Council discussion focused on tradeoffs between specifying appointments in the charter and leaving the selection details to future ordinances. Some members argued that specifying a number and a clear appointment method in the charter reduces the risk of delay, political infighting or administrative missteps when a future council convenes a commission. Those proponents said a specific model (for example, nine members, seven appointed by council and two by the mayor) is common in Ohio and would speed the process while preserving council oversight.
Other members cautioned against over-prescribing the process in the charter and favored leaving implementation details to future councils via ordinance so that future governing bodies have flexibility. Several councilors proposed a middle ground: specify the commission size (nine members), require appointments be drawn from a shared applicant pool, but allow council to determine appointment mechanics by ordinance.
By the close of the discussion the working direction favored a nine-member commission, with many council members indicating support for a 7/2 council/mayor appointment split and for additional procedural guardrails (timely appointments, common application process) to avoid repeating the contentious selection process used previously.
Why this matters: The Charter Review Commission recommends changes to the city's governing document that will be considered by council and, if adopted by council, placed on the ballot for voter approval. The commission's composition and selection process influences perceived fairness and public confidence in recommendations. Council asked the law department to draft charter language that captures the group's direction for later review.
