During Jan. 25 committee review of proposed charter language on departments and appointments, council members and commissioners discussed three interlocking items: which department directors should require council confirmation, whether the mayor should be able to remove directors without council approval, and the legal and practical structure for appointing the city's next Charter Review Commission.

Confirmation versus mayoral control

- Which appointments require confirmation: The CRC draft lists a subset of "major" department heads that historically have required council confirmation (for example, law, finance, planning); council members debated extending confirmation to additional directors. Several members argued confirmation of law, finance, planning and public works is sufficient; others supported a broader list but raised concerns about increasing administrative delays at a time of high turnover.

- Removal authority: Council considered whether the mayor should be able to remove any director without council approval. Several council members argued the mayor needs flexibility to place a trusted leadership team in key administrative roles; others said the law director occupies a unique client-advocate role that could create a conflict if the mayor could unilaterally remove that officer. No final decision was adopted; members discussed alternatives such as requiring council confirmation for removal of certain positions or preserving mayoral removal while allowing council to secure independent legal advice when needed.

Charter Review Commission appointments

- How the CRC itself should be empaneled was a point of contention. Council members and the law director discussed whether the charter should specify the CRC's size and the allocation of appointments between mayor and council (examples from other Ohio cities were referenced). Some council members favored specifying appointment share in the charter (for example, 5 council appointees and 4 mayoral appointees); others preferred leaving the selection rule to ordinance so future councils retain flexibility. Council directed staff to gather comparative language from other municipalities and return with specific options.

Salary review

The commission also proposed a process for periodic review of elected-official and senior-official compensation: a required review every four years with commission recommendations for council consideration. Council members generally supported requiring periodic review rather than leaving compensation unchanged indefinitely.

Ending

No charter text on confirmations or removal was adopted at the meeting. Council members asked the law department and staff to bring back clear options that tie appointment/removal rules to current practice or set specific appointment allocations for the CRC.