Gahanna Charter Review Commission tables matrix vote, removes several procedural proposals

The Gahanna Charter Review Commission met April 23 and began transitioning from public engagement to deliberations on proposed charter changes, commission leaders said.

Commission staff reported that 27 distinct public proposals had been aggregated into 14 draft ballot measures and recommended applying a single scoring matrix across measures to help prioritize which items to send to voters. The chair said the change would help ensure each ballot question addresses a single subject as required by Ohio law.

Commissioners raised procedural and timing concerns. Several members asked that absent commissioners be given an opportunity to weigh in before the commission adopts a refinement to its process architecture. On a motion to table a vote on applying the matrix until after additional discussion and the next meeting, the motion passed by roll call with the commissioners present voting to table the action.

The commission then examined which draft measures should be treated as non-charter-level administrative matters. Commissioner Lester moved to remove a set of items (CRC 13–16) submitted by Miss Pier that focused on development and real-estate procedures; other commissioners agreed those subjects appeared to be administrative or rule-based rather than charter-level. The motion to strike CRC 13–16 carried on a roll-call vote.

Commissioners also debated CRC 19, a proposal asking the commission to define “excused absences” for the planning commission. The city attorney explained the current charter prescribes absence-count thresholds that can lead to automatic removal and said delegating flexibility to the planning commission could require careful charter language. After discussion, the commission voted to strike CRC 19 from the draft ballot list.

Several other items were placed on an education hold rather than removed. Commissioners asked staff to gather data or schedule experts on topics including ward composition (CRC 25), the question of whether wards should be balanced by residents or voters, the potential consequences of changing the city’s form of government (mayor vs. city manager), and the scope and wording of a proposed expansion of the charter’s nondiscrimination clause (CRC 24).

City Attorney Tim Lerson clarified several legal points during the meeting: special meetings can be governed by council rules or by charter default rules, committee meetings are distinct from regular and special council meetings (and public comment is typically limited to regular/special meetings unless council rules say otherwise), and officials can be sworn privately so a delayed organizational meeting date does not create an inevitable governance gap. Lerson offered to prepare a redline of the city attorney charter section for the commission to review.

The commission instructed staff to update the proposal inventory to reflect items struck and held for education, to contact the Board of Elections for ward and voter data, and to reach out to absent commissioners about scheduling potential special meetings in late April or May. The commission adjourned at 8:18 p.m.

What’s next: The commission will reconvene with the full group or via a special meeting to complete scoring and to review requested educational materials before any vote on ballot measures.