Gahanna Charter Review Commission forwards 10 proposed charter amendments to council for placement on the ballot

Gahanna's Charter Review Commission on July 6 delivered a package of 10 proposed charter amendments to the city council, asking the council to approve the final draft language for placement before voters.

The commission's chair, Barnhart, told council the seven-member panel met 11 times, developed a scoring framework to evaluate proposals and focused its recommendations on four clusters: administrative and cleanup language, standardization of charter terms (including qualifications and abstention rules for elected officials), measures intended to reduce cost or duplication (including proposed changes to the mayoral primary and planning-and-zoning appeals), and accountability items such as clearer ward-boundary processes and planning commission attendance rules. "We really took our charge seriously," Barnhart said, summarizing the commission's deliberative process.

Vice Chair Wester said the commission considered, but did not forward, a broad study or recommendation to change Gahanna's form of government because the commission did not find a sufficient factual record to justify such a foundational change. "We kept going back to, if we're going to change it, what is the consequence and what is the reason?" Wester said, explaining why the commission did not advance that topic.

Commissioners recommended moving the charter review cadence from every five years to every 10 years, arguing the less-frequent schedule better aligns with peer communities and reduces the risk of incremental, destabilizing changes to a foundational governing document. "There are updates that are made every five years that add little wrinkles and inconsistencies," one commissioner said during discussion.

City Attorney Tamela Harrison told council that under the charter, any recommendations certified by the commission must be submitted to the electorate and that council's role is to acknowledge receipt, approve the final drafted language and direct the board of elections to place the items on the ballot. She also noted two clerical corrections had been made to the draft exhibits and that final ballot language must be received by the board of elections at least 90 days before an election.

Several council members thanked the commission for a process they described as thorough and evidence-based. Some members asked questions about specific items: the proposed cadence change, whether council could add additional measures to the ballot, and a seemingly minor but practically important organizational meeting date (the charter currently prescribes January 2) and how a change could affect the swearing-in and continuity of operations.

Council signaled an intent to place the commission's 10 proposals on the consent agenda at the next meeting for introduction; councilmembers also noted that if they choose to advance additional charter amendments they may do so (the city attorney said council can place a council-proposed amendment on the ballot with five affirmative votes). Harrison reminded the dais that the practical deadline for adding items to a November ballot likely would fall in early August given the Board of Elections' 90-day filing requirement.

What happens next: council indicated it will include the commission's certified resolutions on the agenda at the next meeting for introduction and placement on the ballot process; any council-advanced proposals would require a five-vote move to the ballot and final language must meet the board of elections' timing requirements.