Administrative Services Committee begins review of Chapter 111 rules for meetings and committees, discusses social‑justice task force and moves to executive ses

The Cleveland Heights Administrative Services Committee on Jan. 27 opened a multi‑meeting review of Chapter 111 of the city’s municipal ordinances, debating how special meetings are called and published, the role of the council president and clerk in preparing agendas, access by remote members, and proposed rules for advisory committees and compensation for certain boards. The committee concluded its public session by entering an executive session to consider appointments to boards and commissions.

The review matters because Chapter 111 governs how council meetings, special and emergency meetings, and advisory committees operate; changes would affect notice, quorum procedures, remote participation and who is responsible for publishing agendas.

Committee members spent the bulk of the meeting walking section‑by‑section through Chapter 111. They focused first on 111.02 (special meetings), where members said the ordinance is unclear about who prepares and publishes the agenda when a special meeting is called by the mayor or by two council members. The committee chair (identified in the meeting only as the chairperson) opened discussion and asked members for suggested clarifications. Council Member and vice chair Jim Petrus said, “I think the council clerk needs to be notified.” The committee agreed that the council clerk and the council president should be explicitly included in the special‑meeting notice and agenda‑publication process so the published agenda is accurate and can meet the 24‑hour posting requirement currently referenced in practice.

Members debated whether the person(s) calling a special meeting may set the date and time unilaterally or whether the council president and clerk should formalize the agenda before publication. One member noted that the practice this year included two special meetings and that in at least one case some council members were queried about availability while others were not; the committee said a “good faith effort” to determine members’ availability should be considered when scheduling special meetings called outside the regular calendar.

Remote participation and Zoom access came up repeatedly. A committee member said Zoom “should be available to in all cases,” and members asked that virtual access be clarified in Chapter 111 so that council members are not prevented from participating remotely at regular, special or emergency meetings. The group agreed the law director should be asked to review any proposed language on remote participation before it is finalized.

The committee also reviewed provisions that govern quorum (the ordinance requires four of seven members), adjournment and the public’s access to meeting minutes and records. Members said current practice of posting records online has improved and that no immediate changes were required on public‑records access.

Discussion moved to advisory committees (111.11) and related provisions. The chair reported earlier draft revisions that would explicitly confirm council’s authority to create, dissolve and remove appointees to advisory committees and task forces, and to add uniform rules (attendance, term limits, recording/minutes, council representation and staffing resources). Members raised a concern relayed by committee and board chairs that a single, universal rule set might not fit all advisory bodies; the chairs asked that committee‑specific flexibility be preserved for issues such as addressing attendance problems.

Compensation for volunteer boards was discussed. Members said the planning commission, board of zoning appeals and architectural review board currently receive a $90 stipend and agreed to consider, when the city’s wage ordinance and salary study are next updated, whether to increase stipends and to add the Landmark Commission (which members said now makes quasi‑judicial decisions) to the list of paid boards.

Under “other” business, the chair described a resident request brought to Council Member Petrus asking whether the city would form a committee to address antisemitism. The chair said she prefers an umbrella social‑justice or human‑relations task force that would handle antisemitism, racial‑justice, LGBTQI and related concerns rather than separate single‑issue panels. Members asked the chair to draft more detail for a future meeting and to circulate language for how such a task force would be formed and resourced.

Several members said they will provide proposed wording for Chapter 111 changes at the next administrative services meeting and that the law director should be brought in to review proposed ordinance language once the committee has agreed on policy changes. The chair said the committee will aim to circulate proposed edits and then reconvene for further drafting.

Before closing the public part of the meeting, the committee approved a motion to enter executive session “to consider the appointment of a public official.” Council Member Jim Petrus made the motion; the chair seconded it. The committee later reported that the executive session concluded at 6:18 p.m. and adjourned. The committee did not discuss any substantive matters in public after entering executive session, and no roll‑call vote on the motion was read into the public record.

What’s next: Committee members said they will continue drafting changes to Chapter 111, consult the law director on legal form and remote‑participation rules, and return the draft language to a future Administrative Services Committee meeting for further review.