Charter-review timing, submission process tabled after split vote; members ask law director for guidance

The board devoted a lengthy portion of its meeting to proposed changes governing the charter-review commission, including how often the commission should convene, when the commission should be appointed, how many members should serve, and whether the commission’s determinations can be submitted directly to the board of elections or must be forwarded and certified by council and legal counsel.

Chair presented a revised draft that would tighten language, increase lead time for appointees and describe the commission’s duties as making “determinations” rather than mere recommendations. Members debated intervals of 4 years vs. 5 years for mandatory review, whether commissioners should be appointed in October to allow six months of work, and whether the charter should require council to pass proposed amendments by a single reading or allow council to suspend rules and pass them as emergency legislation.

The meeting recorded a contested vote on approving the charter-review language “as written.” That motion failed on a roll call split (Gwen — Yes; Brad — No; Phil — Yes; Karen — No; David — No). Later, after further discussion and requests for legal clarity about Ohio Constitutional and ORC requirements for submitting charter amendments, the commission voted to table the proposed charter-review language and to gather prior counsel opinions and statutory citations for the next meeting.

Key points and next steps

- Frequency and timing: Members were divided on whether to require charter review every 4 years (to align with election cycles and increase voter turnout) or every 5 years (a common municipal practice). Several members urged appointing a commission in October so it has at least six months to complete its work.

- Submission process: Members asked the law director whether the commission’s determinations may be submitted directly to the board of elections or whether council must act (by ordinance or suspending rules) to place amendments on the ballot. Participants cited Article 18 of the Ohio Constitution and section references in the Ohio Revised Code as relevant.

- Action taken: The commission moved to table the language pending a legal review and collection of prior legal opinions and statutory references; the motion to table passed by roll call.

The commission asked staff to collect prior counsel opinions, relevant ORC citations and a redraft of the charter-review language with concrete dates (e.g., four-year cycle, October appointment, five-member commission) to bring back for legal review and a subsequent meeting.