Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Removal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter review panel debates clearer standards and process for removing council members
Summary
The committee discussed adding concrete triggers (felony, malfeasance, attendance) and notice/hearing protections to Vandalia’s removal process, while preserving a five-vote threshold for removal. Staff will draft proposed replacement text and return it to the committee.
The Charter Review Committee spent the bulk of the meeting weighing how the city’s charter should treat removal of an elected council member. Katie, who presented comparative language from nearby municipalities, said the current Vandalia provision is brief and unclear: removal today is triggered by conviction of a felony or failure to fulfill requirements and requires five votes for a special resolution.
Members debated whether to rely solely on felony convictions or to add broader language — such as malfeasance or "moral turpitude" — to allow council to respond to serious non-felony misconduct. "Vandalia's is very short, you might say, on sections. Vague," Katie said, noting that Tipp City and Springboro include more detailed standards. Several members favored keeping a felony standard while adding a separate clause for conduct that undermines public confidence.
The committee also discussed concrete standards such as attendance (the charter currently cites three missed meetings) and whether subjective criteria such as "not being prepared" should serve as triggers; members generally hesitated to codify vague performance standards. On the question of automatic removal, Katie and others noted that because an elected official holds office, a conviction alone still typically requires a motion and the council’s vote to vacate the seat.
On process, members coalesced around adding notice and an opportunity to respond rather than eliminating due-process protections. One member asked whether an accused official should be entitled to a formal hearing; the majority supported a written-notice and response window (Katie proposed 30 days) and left a formal hearing as optional. Katie said she will draft specific language that combines approaches from Tipp City and Union and circulate it with the next packet for detailed review.
The article draws only on committee discussion and proposed drafting; no formal charter changes have been adopted.
