Written by the reviewer from the ASR + docket; [verbatim-ASR] = quoted machine transcript; [paraphrase] = reviewer's wording, not a quote.
0:00 So all right, so we will bring committee of the whole to order.
0:20 So I will first move to approve the minutes of the May 18th meeting without the necessity
0:26 Motions been made and seconded.
0:32 And that motion passed.
0:33 And I'll just note, without objection, excuse the absence of Councilmember Hamilton
0:38 Steiner, who has recused herself from discussion of the Charter Review amendments, having served
0:45 on the Charter Review Commission out of abundance of caution, so she will not be joining us
0:49 this evening for committee of the whole.
0:53 So we have several items for Charter Review Commission, the Charter Review amendments.
1:03 My perhaps overly ambitious hope is that we may be able to finalize these tonight.
1:10 As you recall, the deadline to get things on the November docket is the very beginning
1:16 We are now in the second full meeting of June, which means we only have the two
1:21 full council meetings in July, unless we call a special meeting to get these done
1:24 before we go on recess.
1:31 And also, so just to go through kind of what we have before us a little bit, we have
1:39 two versions of the rank choice voting, two possibilities of the rank choice voting
1:47 topic, and we have Ordinance 17, 2026, which is to fill council vacancies, Ordinance
1:56 which is salaries, salaries of elected officials, and then the Ordinance 19, 2026, which is
2:08 So the Ordinance 16 and 17 have components in them that are connected to rank choice
2:16 voting in that language in them ties to a primary, which could be eliminated where
2:21 rank choice voting adopted.
2:24 So earlier today, just maybe about an hour ago, sent you all another potential
2:35 substitutes for those three pieces.
2:39 So I had worked with the law department on going through these with the idea that
2:44 whether or not rank choice voting were to be adopted now or never or in the future,
2:51 language of Ordinance 16 and 17, which as written currently tied to a primary, would
2:58 not need to be revisited so that they would still work as written whether or not rank
3:04 choice voting were enacted.
3:08 So we could, and then in Ordinance 19, well, we'll just maybe start with those
3:15 And then I'll pause there and just say as regards to rank choice voting, we've had
3:23 quite a few conversations about it over several council meetings.
3:27 At our last committee of the whole, the concept came up that we, as we said, we
3:35 have the two ordinances that address it in two different ways, the way that Charter
3:39 Review Commission recommended which would, if passed, would give council the authority
3:44 to adopt rank choice voting by ordinance or resolution, which potentially gives
3:50 flexibility but puts us at risk of being in violation of SB 63 and losing
3:57 And then the other option is to have it directly adopted by the voters
4:04 potentially and put into the charter with a severability clause.
4:10 We haven't dug a great deal into how that severability clause may or may not
4:17 However, there is still the possibility that because SB 63 was passed by the
4:25 legislature that even if it is currently not in violation of SB 63, the
4:31 legislature could change that.
4:33 And then we also have the elections in this coming November, which one way or
4:38 the other will lead to a new secretary of state and will also potentially change
4:43 the makeup of the legislature.
4:45 So with all that, some of my thought process at this time is to pause on the
4:52 rank choice voting and come back to it after we see what happens in the
4:59 And part of that, I believe very firmly in rank choice voting, I think
5:04 it's an excellent tool for democracy and makes, you know, there's a great
5:12 deal of potential with rank choice voting, the potential for removing
5:16 primaries, reduces barriers of cost to entry.
5:20 It puts more voices potentially in the mix.
5:25 But at this time, I think it would be very confusing to voters if we put
5:28 the version that puts the option before council and then puts council in
5:33 a position of having choosing between risking our funding and doing what our
5:37 voters have asked us to do, rather than the legislature who should be the
5:42 one answering to the voters.
5:44 So with that, I'll pause if anyone else wants to make comments regarding
5:52 Vice President Baker.
5:54 Thank you. First, just thank you in the law department.
5:58 But I know you from our body has been the one kind of leading all of
6:02 these things, so I appreciate all the time and effort.
6:04 It doesn't go unnoticed.
6:06 I'll say on rank choice voting, I'm of a like mind of you in the sense that I
6:11 think it top line when I explain this to residents that I see why rank choice
6:18 voting, we have a primary, no one votes in it, it's expensive.
6:22 So for me, the lakewood reason for rank choice voting is that right now, I
6:31 think that there are other benefits beyond that, which the council
6:34 president laid out, and I want to do it.
6:37 I want Lakewood to do rank choice voting.
6:39 I, I'm upset that the state legislator has continued to erode our home
6:44 rule authority and what's more home rule than the being able to govern
6:49 how your locally elected officials are elected, but be that it is may,
6:56 I don't take the world as I want it.
6:57 I take the world as it is.
6:58 Um, and therefore I, I tend to agree that if we go before the voters and
7:05 say, Hey, this charter amendment allows us to do rank choice voting.
7:08 And they're like, well, why the heck aren't we doing ranked choice voting?
7:10 Um, I can understand why folks would be both confused and maybe upset.
7:15 Um, and then the other one that kind of has a, a back door out.
7:21 If they determine that we don't get our municipal funding, I
7:23 think that puts us in a position of still litigating, uh, in some ways,
7:29 uh, because as the law department has pointed out, it's kind of an
7:33 administrative function giving us local government funds.
7:36 It's, it's, uh, as we discovered with the cannabis funds, you
7:43 know, if the governor at the time, so there's an interplay of a lot of
7:45 different state offices here.
7:46 One is the secretary of state's determination of this issue, which
7:51 essentially an administrative or agency rule where they're saying, at least
7:54 for this current SB 63, whatever it is, that if it's by charter, it's okay.
8:01 The council president's point, new secretary of state could change that
8:05 determination, uh, but then you also have the governor's office that
8:08 actually oversees the office of, of office of budget management
8:11 that cuts the checks, right?
8:13 So both of them have to agree with that interpretation in order for us
8:17 to get our local government funding.
8:19 There could be a point where we don't get it for three months to not have
8:23 that cash flow is very important to the city of Lakewood to be able
8:26 to pay our employees and do the public works projects.
8:29 We need to do, keep the lights on.
8:31 So it's, it's, uh, something that I think would be good for Lakewood
8:38 against something that could be catastrophic for Lakewood.
8:40 Um, so I think that at this point, not moving forward with
8:44 rank choices is the right way to go in this one single council
8:47 person's view of the world, although it greatly upsets me.
8:53 The other council member Evans.
8:56 Um, I, I completely understand all the, all the reasoning for what
9:02 we're talking about and yeah, we're in a, um, a really difficult
9:05 position that we've been placed in by the states.
9:07 Um, I personally, again, my one councilman's position, um, um, I
9:13 would, I would still go through this because I think it's a
9:15 worthwhile exercise and I trust our, our electorate to make the right
9:20 decision and we can find our way, um, to a better space here.
9:24 But again, that's just me.
9:25 I I'm not going to, you know, hold everything up over this.
9:29 Um, obviously, uh, but personally on the record, I would like to,
9:34 I do want to see us go through with rank choice voting at some point.
9:37 I wish we could do it sooner.
9:38 I am disappointed just like everybody else here in the, the
9:41 reasons that we can't do that right now.
9:43 Um, but, um, for the record, if, if it were just me voting, I would,
9:48 um, I would push this through and work through the consequences.
9:53 Uh, councilmember Bixenstein.
9:56 Um, I, uh, share the same viewpoints that, uh, you and, uh, vice
10:01 president Baker share where I certainly am in favor of ranked
10:03 choice voting, um, but, um, it seems like right now is the time
10:08 to, um, do you, uh, you know, really use an abundance of caution.
10:13 And remind ourselves that, uh, good things come to those who wait in
10:17 some cases, not all the time, but in some cases, and, you know, I
10:20 think we keep this on our radar and, uh, revisit it after November.
10:24 And I, I do look forward to a future where, uh, Lakewood has
10:27 ranked choice voting in our system.
10:32 Other councilmembers?
10:33 Councilmember Stuping.
10:35 I've expressed my disappointment with, uh, the state house on, on
10:40 several occasions and again today.
10:42 And I agree to, uh, to pause this so that we're not, again, painting
10:47 a target on ourselves for the next, um, state legislator to come and,
10:52 and rewrite the rules again and continue to target us.
10:56 So I think that you're right.
10:58 I think that this is the time to, uh, to pause this.
11:04 Councilmember Berlick.
11:06 Thanks, madam president or madam chair.
11:08 Um, thoughtful deliberation, also a lot of hard work that, um, council
11:13 has put in, the law department has put in, appreciate that.
11:16 I think we're really, um, showing due consideration of the charter
11:21 review commission, multiple recommendations.
11:25 So thanks for that, especially you councilwoman Keppel, because
11:28 you've put in a lot of work.
11:29 Um, the only, so nothing to add on, on what's been said on the
11:35 make sure it's funny.
11:35 I would say on the question of whether a primary is a good or a bad idea,
11:40 it's possible to separately address that.
11:44 So if, if, if council members or the public thinks a primaries shouldn't
11:49 be in Lakewood, then we can separately amend.
11:51 I think we did just that with the, um, uh, municipal court, didn't
11:57 we recently, not too long ago, the change of primary rules, um, councilman
12:01 O'Malley, um, although I've heard it argued pretty persuasively by a
12:08 colleague in another, um, city that there is value in the primary.
12:13 And I think that person was thinking of a high profile, um, municipal
12:19 race where attention, if you had a crowded field, for example, rather
12:23 than multiple candidates go straight to the ballot, you'd have constructive
12:29 voter attention on winnowing down many to, to the final two.
12:34 And then that would lift to the top, you know, in other words, using the
12:38 primary as a constructive tool, as opposed to a waste of time.
12:42 I acknowledge that there are fewer primary voters, but it's not a total
12:47 cliff, you know, there's, there's a, there's a smaller group, but it's
12:51 not completely divorced from the general election turnout, um, at
12:56 least the way we do it in Lakewood.
12:57 So, I mean, I could, I could be persuaded either way.
13:00 Um, I guess we could look at the actuals on what the primary election
13:05 costs, but if council members really are concerned about that, then we
13:10 could also consider that separately while any rank choice voting
13:16 consideration is pending in Columbus.
13:22 Uh, thank you, council president.
13:23 And to your point, councilman Bullock, I see what you're saying.
13:26 I do think that short of rank choice voting, our current primary system
13:30 is, is the best way, uh, in the sense that you have to get 50.1% of,
13:38 50% of the vote plus one to get an elected office.
13:41 And so the primary windows it down to two, or in the case of, um,
13:47 uh, at large six, uh, I do think that there are some perverse
13:53 consequences of just having an open field and then letting the top vote
13:56 get her win because they could have a plurality essentially.
13:59 You can get 30% of the vote and, and be an elected office.
14:03 Um, that's kind of the point of rank choice voting is to eliminate that.
14:07 Now I, why I use the primary as an example, uh, it's not the driving
14:12 force behind why I think race and rank choice voting is better and
14:16 produces better outcomes.
14:17 It's just the why Lakewood question.
14:21 Um, so I think the first one is, I mean, the primary, I, I don't want to use
14:26 numbers, uh, that I probably could look up pretty quickly, but it's like 20
14:32 or 30% of the, of the general election turnout.
14:37 Um, and the general election turnout is already, I wish better,
14:42 uh, for municipal elections.
14:46 Um, and there's typically nothing else on the September ballot.
14:50 Specifically only a municipal election.
14:52 Uh, it just, I think it's the best we have in the system that we're in
15:00 except for rank choice voting, but we can't get rank choice voting
15:03 because, you know, uh, yes, because we need funding to do the things
15:09 we do for the citizens of Lakewood.
15:11 And we need to pick up trash.
15:12 We need to pay police officers.
15:14 We need to keep nice parks.
15:15 So, um, just add onto that, that, um, to councilman Nevin's point, you
15:22 know, I, I didn't start into this to be an elected official.
15:27 I started as an activist and I'm all about taking on the fight.
15:32 So I would, I would, if it were just me, I would be happy to take on this
15:37 Um, but one of the things that I've been thinking about too is how many
15:42 fights we take on at once.
15:44 And with this current federal administration and state administration,
15:47 there may come a time in the next few years where we are forced to take on
15:52 a fight in order to protect our residents.
15:55 Um, and this is one where it adds value and is a good thing, but as
16:01 councilman Baker or vice president Baker said, um, there's also a
16:04 catastrophic potential fallout.
16:06 In addition, if we, if we were to do the one where it goes directly in
16:11 the charter and then it has the, um, clause to go, you know, to pull
16:16 back, then we might end up with the state rules and then we end up in
16:19 a, um, partied primary, which kind of makes things less, um, less
16:24 like-ranked choice voting to council, uh, vice president Baker's point.
16:27 So, um, but we have, uh, just to keep things rolling here, um, so
16:34 because we have just a little over an hour to get through these other
16:36 three, so it seems like at this time, um, we have some consensus on
16:42 pausing on this for the moment.
16:43 Um, I, again, just want to be on record that I strongly support
16:48 ranked choice voting and think it's a very good thing and, um, we'll
16:52 continue this fight with the state house, um, uh, to let us have it.
16:57 Um, and making sure that we, I will be working to let
17:00 candidates, uh, that support it as well.
17:03 Um, but with that, uh, if no, if there's no other comment from council
17:08 members, I'll open up in case we have comment from the public on this
17:11 topic, would anyone like to speak?
17:14 Yeah, come on up, Chris.
17:22 Push the button so it's green.
17:24 We want to hear you.
17:25 Um, so I, I'm kind of glad to hear what I'm hearing as far as,
17:30 uh, I, I wrote down some questions after the last meeting.
17:33 Like, okay, if we do pause, like, I know it's tied into these other
17:36 three, so how do we handle that?
17:38 So I'm glad that it sounds like we've figured that out.
17:40 So those can still move forward and we still have a way to move forward
17:44 with our CV when and if we want to.
17:47 So I'm glad to hear that.
17:49 Um, my big concern and I understand that you're not here to answer
17:52 questions, so I'm just kind of pose these and then maybe we can discuss
17:54 it later or whatever, but I just want to make sure that, you know,
17:59 I've been following this body long enough that often when things are
18:03 said, we will look again down the road, they get lost.
18:08 And sometimes they come up again a year, five years down the road.
18:12 Sometimes they don't at all.
18:13 So I just want to know, like, how are we guaranteeing that this is not
18:18 going to get lost in the shuffle and this will be brought up again?
18:20 Um, cause I imagine you're going to table it and it's not going to
18:25 remain on this docket, uh, for, or the agenda for the committee.
18:29 So what's going to bring it back?
18:31 I also want you to take that time and, uh, you know, look into more
18:39 about the severability plot clause.
18:41 Cause I feel like we keep talking about it, but it hasn't really
18:44 been dug into, um, over the last six months or so that we've been
18:48 discussing this, so I hope that you can spend some time and actually
18:52 get some actual info on how that will impact Lakewood if we
18:56 were to take that route.
18:58 Um, same thing with reaching out to the partners that, uh, have been
19:03 discussed that are willing to help support communities that do adopt
19:07 RCB to make sure that if we do run into problems with the state,
19:10 that we're not doing it on our own, you know, that's again,
19:13 something that's been brought up a couple of times, but I don't
19:15 think that's actually been something we've reached out to and
19:18 discussed with those people.
19:19 So take this time, do the constructive work that needs to be done.
19:23 So after November, when this comes up again, we have the
19:28 information we need.
19:32 Um, appreciate it, Chris.
19:34 Um, Michelle, did you want to speak at all?
19:52 Uh, Ernie, can you, sorry, Director Vargo.
20:01 Um, yeah, I really appreciate from everyone.
20:05 The diligence, the due diligence has gone into this.
20:08 Um, I completely support pausing, but like Chris, how do you get it back?
20:17 Um, because I do think that even if this made it the ballot language,
20:21 September 4th or whenever that's just no time before November for
20:26 people to feel comfortable.
20:27 Um, I'm designing, however, a series of forums, um, so that when
20:33 we're ready to pull the trigger, we're ready to pull the trigger, but I'd
20:36 like to start implementing those next, um, this in, after the election.
20:40 Um, the other piece of this is we will not know any of the
20:45 legislation is very sloppily written.
20:47 It was quick because it was designed to, to create a problem.
20:50 However, it's not going to be solved until there is litigation.
20:54 And right now we are part of a bigger legal table getting pro bono,
20:59 um, uh, legal help to bring a suit, but we have to have some entity with
21:06 standing, we don't have standing.
21:08 And so we're, um, president Keppel, I'll probably ask our executive
21:13 director to reach out to you directly.
21:15 Um, but this is the type of that we're at this moment in time where,
21:20 and I get it because you've got the trans bill coming down with the
21:23 high schools, totally get it.
21:25 Which is exactly why we have to fight at every single juncture
21:29 that we don't, we don't sit for this.
21:31 Um, so I appreciate this.
21:32 I do look forward to continuing the conversation that it doesn't die.
21:37 It's been two years of my life and I'm getting too old now to do another two
21:42 So for my sake, y'all, you know, let's have a plan.
21:45 Cause I've seen, I've been very gratified to see the work of
21:48 government in action in real time.
21:50 And you guys are just tremendous.
21:52 So I appreciate it.
21:55 And I'll just, I'll just speak for myself and say that I am fully, um,
21:59 in, in terms of how does it come back?
22:01 I think we, um, continue to work to educate our community and the
22:05 broader community about the benefits.
22:07 And I'm certainly willing to be part of that, uh, work as well.
22:11 Um, so we can put some pressure on Columbus to, uh, change the
22:17 ways and get people elected that will do that work.
22:21 So with that, thank you both for being here and for speaking and for falling
22:26 along with all this.
22:27 Um, so let's go through the other three ordinances.
22:32 So, um, so we could just take these numerical order.
22:37 So ordinance 16, 20, 26.
22:42 Uh, so this one is related to, um, how salaries are set.
22:49 And, um, so it's section 6.7 of the charter salary recommendations.
22:55 So this is, um, what is before you in the one that, uh, sent today
23:01 the, uh, director's assistant director swallow.
23:03 And I kind of went over was that, um, we changed it to be honor
23:08 before March 1st of each year in which a municipal general election is held.
23:14 Um, the civil service commission shall review and make a written report to
23:17 council, which reports should be filed, yada, yada, yada.
23:20 And then, um, it, so, so that, um, unless council takes action, if
23:30 council takes no action or fails to decline to follow the suggestion
23:34 within 90 days, the recommendation shall take effect as if council had
23:38 adopted them by ordinance approved by the mayor.
23:41 So this changes it instead of being tied to the presidential, um,
23:51 election, it's to the municipal, the charter view commission, when they
23:54 were looking at this and, um, since director swallow, you can correct me
23:58 if I'm wrong, but the idea was to have salaries reviewed more option
24:03 because particularly, I think the way it was written before the ward
24:08 council members and the mayoral, because no salary effects can take
24:15 effect during a current term.
24:17 And so they would meet and then they make a recommendation that it can't
24:20 take place for another four years.
24:21 And so they don't end up being six years or eight years.
24:24 So we kind of went through and did the math.
24:27 So because if they meet in March, another section of the code says that
24:32 any changes to salary need to be in place 30 days prior to the filing
24:37 And that's the reason it's tied potentially during choice voting is
24:40 because the filing deadline, if we did not have a primary would potentially
24:47 be August when the school board is because for the November election.
24:51 So this way, um, doing it in March would give us the 30 days back for,
24:58 um, it to be on before the filing deadline, as well as the, um, 60
25:05 days or the 90 days for council to take action, which gives us the
25:09 Christian for it to be in place before either a filing deadline, which
25:13 would be June, if there's a primary and for September election or
25:17 August, if there's no primary, um, for a November election,
25:23 Just that makes sense to people.
25:25 That's been booked.
25:26 I'd be happy to make a motion to adopt the red lines on the screen.
25:33 Um, yeah, it's actually, there's a difference.
25:38 Um, so the honor before March one of each year in which a municipal
25:45 general election is held, so you don't have to, I don't have to
25:49 make a motion right now if there's more to say, but it makes sense.
25:56 So the, uh, I think the version on the screen has this, so, but
26:01 this that section of the March 1st in which a municipal general.
26:06 So, um, if ever, if we approve of the version that is council president.
26:11 So something was brought up to me after this was sent around today
26:16 that referencing a general election, if we go back and look at what
26:21 the charter commission, uh, recommended, they actually pulled out
26:26 any reference to an election.
26:28 And it was pointed out to me that a general election is going to be
26:32 anything other than a primary or a special election.
26:34 So if there was some ballot issue that comes forth, that could
26:39 be considered a general election.
26:42 So I think our conversation that we had earlier today was to make sure
26:50 that any salaries were decided prior to the filing deadline and because
26:55 Lakewood's council and mayoral elections occur in odd years, would it make
27:00 sense to just change that what we have before us on or before March 1st of
27:05 each odd numbered year and take out the reference to any election?
27:16 Does that make sense?
27:19 So an odd, odd numbered years, cause it was presidential in the,
27:23 how it stands correctly.
27:24 So if we make an odd number, it would be
27:26 and the charter review commission recommended July 1st of each even
27:30 numbered year, which if, if we're doing it March 1st, I still think that's fine.
27:37 Excuse me to do it on an odd numbered year.
27:42 So would we want to say in which a municipal general election or no,
27:47 which then you want to say in which a odd, I think we want to say
27:51 honor before March 1st of each odd numbered year, comma the civil service
27:57 commission shall review.
28:03 And strike each odd numbered year and strike in which a municipal
28:09 general election is held.
28:10 It would just be each odd numbered year.
28:13 So I will move to amend to read honor before March 1st of each odd
28:23 numbered year, uh, and then strike in which a municipal general election is held.
28:32 The motion has been made and seconded discussion.
28:36 And I think the reason for the odd numbered year versus the even is
28:40 because if you do it in the even, then you're in the middle of a term.
28:44 And so then you're still in the same problem of crack.
28:47 So that was why the March of the odd.
28:52 Um, and then the other change in the version that was, um, sent around today,
29:00 that, oh, yeah, yeah, sorry.
29:02 Let's go ahead and vote on the motion, um, to amend all those in favor.
29:09 And that motion passes.
29:10 And then the other thing that's different in the version that was sent
29:14 around today is, um, towards the end.
29:18 Um, and assistant director swallow.
29:19 Do you want to talk about that a little bit?
29:21 So I staffed both, um, charter review commission and I regularly
29:25 staff the civil service commission.
29:26 So when charter review commission was meeting and the issue of salaries
29:29 came up, I brought that back to the civil service commission as well,
29:32 because obviously they're part of the process and should have some,
29:36 uh, you know, say if they had thoughts about that, both the civil
29:41 service commission and the charter review commission recommended striking
29:45 the last, um, line of section 6.7 to remove, um, the 10% cap and the
29:55 number of years they both felt that if, if it was a recommendation from
29:59 the commission that council, um, either approved or chose not to act
30:03 on that in certain circumstances that could exceed 10% and one of the
30:10 things that we talked about is that, um, administrative employees
30:14 typically follow the same salary increases that the unions get
30:18 annually and those regularly exceed 10% over that period.
30:23 So it would allow for, um, the potential if, if it was, um,
30:30 recommended for slightly larger increases to help catch some of
30:34 those positions up and if anything were recommended that, you know,
30:39 council felt was inappropriate, you certainly have the ability
30:42 to lower that amount to make sure that it's not egregious.
30:50 Thank you, um, for that explanation.
30:52 And so what's, um, I had when introduced this put eight years
30:57 instead of 10 because terms are four years, so it doesn't really
31:01 make sense to do that, but if we strike the whole thing, it
31:03 doesn't really matter whether it says eight or 10.
31:05 So, um, any thoughts on striking that section?
31:08 I'll go ahead and make a motion to, um, strike the last sentence
31:13 starting with, however, and ending with 10 years or eight years.
31:18 Um, any discussion?
31:19 Yeah, madam chair, I'd prefer, thank you.
31:21 I'd prefer to leave in some version.
31:24 Maybe if the thought is that 3% compounded adds up to 11 or 11
31:29 and a half percent, then you could say 15, not to exceed
31:34 15% over eight years.
31:36 Um, I think the whole reason this exists is because of the
31:41 uncommon circumstance in which this body has voted on his own
31:45 salary much in even the mayor's salary has been pretty rare.
31:50 Um, there's an argument to be made that, uh, city council be
31:56 compensated more or be compensated more closely to a
31:59 full-time position.
32:01 If that's the intent, then I think we, it'd be important
32:05 that we talk to the public directly about that.
32:08 Um, right now though, we're a part-time council and so I
32:15 don't really prefer large, regular increases and, and the
32:22 statement that city union employees regularly exceed 10%.
32:27 I, I don't know if that's always true or that's always
32:29 going to be affordable.
32:30 It's been sometimes true.
32:32 I think we have to have a little bit of fiduciary
32:35 responsibility about that.
32:37 Responsibility about that.
32:38 I remember, you know, Jen Swell, you remember two years when
32:41 that was definitely not the case.
32:43 We're happy to not have layoffs and we're happy to be able
32:46 to provide good benefits, which we always have done in
32:48 city hall, but I don't think we can assume like all these
32:53 So, um, if, if the intent is to keep city council at
33:00 approximately our current pay arrangement, but to keep
33:05 pace with inflation, I would think 10% should be fine or 11%
33:11 And in the spirit of, um, fiscal, I don't know,
33:16 moderation, I'm not excited about the idea of potentially
33:21 the civil service says, okay, we're recommending that we're
33:23 going to convert city council full-time rate of pay.
33:26 That's a valid thing, but I think it should be done, not
33:28 administratively, but the direct conversation of voters.
33:32 So to me, I'm not comfortable with the language
33:34 completely being removed.
33:39 I think it's important to note.
33:40 So, you know, I had some concerns.
33:43 This body's always uncomfortable, uh, talking
33:46 about our own salaries and, um, did not introduce it that
33:50 But when it was pointed out to me that both charter view
33:53 commission and civil service commission, um, asked for this
33:56 language to be removed.
33:58 Um, so that's two bodies that deal with this that
34:01 asked it to be removed.
34:02 And as I recall, um, so it doesn't in any way guarantee
34:09 any sort of increase, in fact, by allowing them to look
34:12 at, uh, salaries more often.
34:15 It also gives them the flexibility that should there
34:17 be, you know, some horrible recession, they could reduce,
34:22 um, those salaries and, um, council has the authority
34:27 to take that on as well and say, you know, we're not,
34:30 in fact, I believe we did during COVID.
34:33 I feel like there was a conversation about, um, the
34:37 potential of increasing council salaries and we didn't take
34:40 it up right then because we didn't want to, we didn't
34:42 know what the financial outlook would be.
34:45 Um, and so we did not take them up on that offer.
34:48 Um, but so anyway, um, other council members thoughts
34:51 vice president Baker.
34:54 Yeah, this is fraud.
34:55 Anytime, uh, we're talking about elected official
34:59 So one thing I will say is, is this won't affect, right?
35:03 So it's like, you can't vote on your own salary during
35:06 Um, this body turns over quite often.
35:10 Um, you know, I think I'm the third longest tenured
35:13 person here and I've only been here for four years, I
35:16 think, so, or less than a full term, if you do the
35:20 math, um, and I think that having such a restriction
35:24 in the charter is just a lot.
35:26 Um, so who knows what inflation does, right?
35:33 Who these are things that, um, you're kind of
35:37 needlessly limiting yourself in a way that maybe
35:41 you can't be competitive for mayor or for council
35:44 If you can't pay them their appropriate wage
35:47 because it's 11% or 12%.
35:50 So that's where I think it's just unnecessarily
35:53 Um, and there still is a process by which civil
35:57 And by the way, I think that there will be, have
35:59 to be other things about full time, part time
36:01 council in the charter.
36:03 I don't know that for sure, but I think that
36:06 this wouldn't be the only thing that did it.
36:07 Um, but if civil service came forth and said
36:12 council should be paid 90 grand a year or
36:14 something like that, we could just not accept
36:17 Um, and there would be public meetings about
36:20 it and the public, I'm sure would hear about
36:21 it and let us know how they felt about it.
36:24 So I think that I'm of the mind that, you
36:28 know, there's nine elected officials in the
36:31 city that represent municipal government.
36:33 We're seven of them.
36:34 Uh, if people are upset about what a civil
36:37 service commission is recommending, they can
36:39 come to us and tell us they don't want us
36:41 And then we, we can not do it right.
36:42 So I like giving us more flexibility and
36:45 which is why I would support this amendment.
36:48 And that also goes to the point of should
36:50 they're not just because civil service
36:52 commission, they may or may not make
36:54 recommendations to increase.
36:55 They could make a recommendation to
36:56 decrease and then it's, if it's been eight
36:59 or 10 years with no increase, but then
37:02 the city's in a better position, um, it
37:04 wouldn't allow the, it wouldn't allow
37:07 So we could be in a position where
37:08 positions are under qualified.
37:10 So anyway, um, it's just the question
37:13 of how much should be in the charter
37:14 versus how much, um, flexibility.
37:17 So that, that's kind of where I, even
37:19 though it's uncomfortable to, um,
37:22 potentially, uh, talk about this, uh,
37:24 a, since both charter and civil service
37:29 recommended it, that's kind of my
37:30 thought other council members.
37:36 Well, we have a motion in a second
37:39 to strike that last line.
37:42 However, no increase in salary under
37:43 this section select shall exceed 10%
37:45 of the salary for the office of
37:48 And this there's been no increase in
37:49 salary for the office in the
37:50 proceeding, um, eight years.
37:53 So on the motion to strike that,
37:55 all those in favor, aye and opposed.
37:59 And that motion passes.
38:01 Um, I will make a motion to refer
38:08 favorably, um, as amended back to
38:11 full council motions been made in
38:14 seconded discussion hearing none.
38:17 All those in favor.
38:22 So that one is done.
38:26 So let's move on to 17, 20, 26,
38:30 which is, um, vacancy council
38:40 So this one, the critical session,
38:46 um, section is section B.
38:56 Um, so really the only, I believe
39:01 the only change in what we sent
39:03 around today, um, was so this one,
39:06 because the way it is currently in
39:09 the charter is tied to, um, so this
39:13 is just background.
39:14 So council vacancies.
39:15 So this actually recently happened,
39:17 which is where, but recently
39:18 happened that council vacancy
39:20 occurred with, um, it's, it's
39:23 common for council vacancies to
39:25 We've done many a council
39:26 appointment, which is partly why
39:28 So, uh, we have the, we've had
39:31 the practice since I've been on
39:32 council and I think well before
39:33 that of having a pretty open
39:35 process, um, and what the
39:39 charter view we talked about
39:40 was, um, just codifying that
39:43 So just because we have had
39:44 that open process, doesn't
39:45 mean future councils, the way
39:47 the charter currently is
39:48 written, it's just says
39:49 council shell a point, but we
39:50 could just sit up here one day
39:53 and be like, I'm making so
39:54 and so, you know, I would like
39:56 to nominate so and so and
39:57 vote on it and there's no
39:58 So this codifies it to say that
40:00 prior to making any appointment,
40:02 council shall first issue an
40:04 open call for all interested
40:05 candidates to submit applications
40:07 upon council's review of the
40:08 applications, um, um, shall
40:14 hold candidate interviews and
40:18 And, uh, so that just is
40:20 describing what we've been
40:21 doing, um, but just says
40:23 that we shall do it.
40:24 And then the other section is
40:26 the, um, if the vacancy
40:29 occurs more than two years
40:31 and 120 days as it currently
40:33 reads before the municipal
40:35 So that would be the part
40:36 that was tied to RCV.
40:38 So I, when I submitted this,
40:41 I put filing deadline.
40:43 So that way what the filing
40:45 deadline again, as we
40:45 discussed would be if there's
40:48 no primary would be in
40:49 August, most likely for a
40:51 general election versus June
40:53 for a September election.
40:54 Now, one thing as I was
40:58 working backwards and, um,
41:01 breaking my brain, going
41:02 backwards in time, trying to
41:03 figure out how these dates
41:05 I, the version that I sent
41:07 around today changes the 120
41:08 to 30 days ahead of the
41:11 filing deadline instead of
41:14 Um, and the reason for that
41:16 is because, um, so if you,
41:21 like what just happened, uh,
41:23 fairly recently when council
41:24 member Schachtner stepped
41:25 down, that actually triggered
41:28 this clause, which is
41:29 somewhat rare that there was
41:30 more than two years and 120
41:33 days left on the term.
41:35 And therefore council member
41:36 Evans, if you want to keep
41:37 the seat, had to run in the
41:38 next, uh, even year, uh,
41:41 municipal or odd year municipal
41:43 primary, um, or, or
41:45 election in order to serve
41:48 the last two years of that
41:49 So the idea here by saying
41:52 30 days before the filing
41:53 deadline is that if in the
41:55 future we were to adopt rank
41:56 choice voting, the voters
41:58 would not have to come back
42:01 We don't need to amend it
42:02 to say primary, um, or if
42:04 we were to eliminate a
42:05 primary in, in some other
42:08 Uh, but 30 days before the
42:10 filing deadline, um, still
42:13 allows, uh, two years and
42:15 30 days before the filing
42:16 deadline, um, allows, uh,
42:19 if it moves to August that
42:21 increases the likelihood of
42:23 that person having to run
42:26 versus, um, which makes it
42:29 more likely that the voters
42:31 get a say is what I'm trying
42:33 So whereas that if we, um,
42:37 so if we tie it to the
42:37 filing deadline, then if
42:39 someone were to leave in
42:42 July and we no longer have
42:44 a primary, then they would,
42:46 this would still apply and
42:47 then they would run in the
42:48 next municipal election if
42:49 they wanted to keep the
42:50 So attempting to increase
42:53 the opportunity for the
42:54 public to weigh in on that
42:59 So I will pause there and
43:00 see if any of that made
43:01 sense or if people have
43:02 questions or concerns.
43:07 Can you, uh, so I followed
43:08 in general, but I don't
43:10 some of the detail of the
43:11 timeline was a little
43:13 Um, so first of all, what
43:15 is the current filing
43:17 So 90 plus 30 equals 120.
43:20 The current filing deadline
43:24 Um, it's in June for
43:28 So the current language
43:30 would keep the current
43:34 And actually it's a
43:36 I don't know where the
43:37 original charter language
43:38 came up with that timeframe.
43:42 chance to look into it,
43:43 but I suppose it's as
43:45 Um, so no, no objection
43:47 to keeping that same
43:48 timeframe, but then I
43:49 didn't follow the part
43:50 about maybe if it's
43:53 So just to give you
43:55 So in other words, if
43:56 we had ranked choice
43:57 voting, filing deadline
43:58 would be 90 days prior
43:59 to November, whatever,
44:02 which would fall in
44:06 So therefore if the
44:11 August, then if the
44:13 vacancy were to occur,
44:15 um, in July or June,
44:18 um, then this would
44:22 voter, airing in favor
44:29 timelines, which I've
44:30 done a million times
44:31 with, uh, Councilman
44:32 Chuckner and Councilman
44:32 Evans issue, um, to
44:39 particular instance,
44:42 it would be tied to
44:44 election for the next
44:45 term of that office,
44:46 which would have been
44:49 So two years and 120
44:50 days before that, um,
44:54 So in this situation,
44:55 if the filing deadline
44:59 before would still be
45:01 So it doesn't really
45:02 change if we don't,
45:07 deadline, instead of
45:12 change of whether or
45:14 not there's a primary.
45:15 Any other questions
45:18 or comments, concerns?
45:22 um, really, I think
45:24 in assistant director
45:28 changed is striking
45:38 replace 120 with 30.
45:49 All those in favor.
45:50 And that motion passes.
45:58 back to full council.
46:02 discussion hearing none.
46:04 All those in favor.
46:06 And that motion passes.
46:08 And then that takes us.
46:22 This is redistricting.
46:23 This one is not really
46:26 tied to our CV per se.
46:28 Um, and the change here,
46:41 this one is setting
46:44 we handle redistricting.
46:49 that anyone in this
46:50 current body would,
46:54 intentionally or anything
46:57 with norms eroding,
46:58 it's good to codify
46:59 things a lot of the time.
47:02 Reviews Commission's
47:06 would be establishing
47:07 a process that sets
47:12 this, uh, so that, um,
47:19 language as the Charter
47:20 Review or as the Civil
47:21 Service Commission,
47:22 essentially, that if
47:24 council takes no action
47:25 or fails to decline
47:26 to follow the suggestions
47:28 the recommendations shall
47:30 take effect, um, as
47:33 ordinance approved by
47:37 Um, now we had some,
47:51 Um, no, we had some
47:53 language, um, so we've
47:55 already, um, adopted
47:59 this substitute, um,
48:02 And then we have some
48:03 additional changes,
48:05 uh, that councilman
48:06 Bullock had proposed,
48:08 um, uh, regarding that
48:16 north south and touch
48:19 north and the southern
48:20 board, the city of the
48:21 Um, so the language
48:23 that you're sending
48:24 around today, um, would
48:28 essentially, uh, essentially
48:29 that, uh, councilman
48:32 Um, however, it also,
48:37 is this, the way this
48:38 is written here would
48:39 strike out, um, natural
48:41 boundaries or street
48:42 lines, which I don't
48:42 think is the intention.
48:43 I think that was part
48:44 of the best practices
48:53 north and south border,
48:57 since director Spall
48:58 and I looked at was
48:58 saying each word shall
49:00 contiguous and compact
49:01 territory, comma, be
49:04 boundaries or street
49:05 lines, comma, and be
49:07 bounded by Lake Erie
49:08 to the north and the
49:09 southern border of the
49:12 just keeping that, um,
49:16 would want an Oxford
49:22 essentially the line
49:23 of, and I can repeat
49:26 just wanted to give
49:28 So I'll pause there
49:35 councilman Bixenstein.
49:38 Thank you, president
49:42 They're, um, important,
49:46 councilperson Bullock.
49:50 language that, that
49:55 south, south, south,
49:56 south, south, south,
49:57 south, south, south,
50:02 some of the advantages
50:05 um, in representation
50:11 boundaries or street
50:13 lines, um, I a think
50:27 on Waterbury, and I should have done my homework and realized they technically weren't in Warden
50:35 and I need to actually connect them to the right person, but it turns out they were
50:40 on the wrong side of the street, and, you know, I think I realized that this is for
50:45 a later discussion, and right now we're setting, codifying our policy, but when
50:52 I interpret natural boundaries or street lines, in general, I would think that would
50:58 not mean down the middle of the street whenever possible, just a comment that I have.
51:04 I think that, and most of them aren't, I think, well actually I'd have to go back
51:09 and look, you guys, the ward council members would know better than I do.
51:11 You're all down the middle of the street? Okay, all right, I don't mind.
51:14 So maybe you guys, you know, if this gets adopted, you'll need to go to the
51:21 Planning Commission meetings and ask them not to do that in the future.
51:25 I guess I would hesitate to put that in the charter, though, that they can't
51:29 split the street because just numbers-wise that might have to happen.
51:33 Right, and that's not my intent. It's more so just since we're talking
51:38 about that particular language for future conversation, but I do appreciate
51:42 that language as well as Councilperson Bullock's amendment.
51:45 Thank you. Other Councilmembers? Okay, so then I am going to move, well let's see.
51:57 Madam Chair? Yes. Go ahead. From a point of point of order standpoint, we, these
52:04 versions that we may put forth the full council, when it actually shows up to
52:09 the voters, it'll have the original language with the new
52:12 language kind of bolded and striked through. How is this going to look for a
52:16 voter? Correct. You're correct. I want to point out we found several typos and
52:22 I will take complete responsibility for those doing this as quickly as I
52:25 had trouble with this one. It was a Word document sent to me that had been
52:30 scanned or converted from an Adobe document and then it was formatting and
52:35 I had to retype a lot of it and cut and paste and whatever. So first
52:39 typo is towards the end of the first sentence, start after Planning
52:48 Commission shall review and make if necessary appropriate redivisions of
52:52 the city. There's a why missing from city. Two lines down from there talking
53:01 about the southern border of the city to the south. Well actually we could
53:09 just make the north lowercase to make that consistent. Or capitalize southern
53:19 and south. So what I'm wondering, what I'm wondering is what if we just work
53:32 from, we have the version in Granicus, if those typos exist in that
53:39 version and then we can just amend to have the sentence that I, we could do
53:44 that. Okay that's we're on 19. Let me just double check the, because there's
53:52 dates also. And might I suggest that we don't pass these tonight at full
54:06 council but maybe give the clerk's office a moment. Yeah they're not, we
54:10 didn't, we didn't dock at them because I have respect for the clerks
54:15 and don't want to force them to do that. So we, and that's also kind of
54:19 why I was hoping to take care of these tonight so we have a chance to
54:22 review and catch anything and you know but we don't have to have another
54:28 committee meeting. I think this version that's in, we have it up now, is that
54:57 the, okay. So if we, because this one has city with a why and it looks like
55:07 the dates. I just double check the dates are correct. Okay so if I then, so the
55:23 sentence that starts each, yeah okay. So I'm gonna move to the sentence that
55:38 ends as evenly equal in population as possible period. Each word
55:48 shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory, be bounded by
55:55 natural boundaries or street lines, and be bounded by Lake Erie to the
56:00 northern and the southern to the northern border. Okay so it should be
56:19 bounded by Lake Erie to the north, the southern border of the city to the
56:27 south period. I think that's it. I think we already, didn't we already do
56:40 the other ones in the substitute? Yeah so that's the only one because we
56:44 already changed the, unless council takes action. I'll go ahead and make a
56:50 motion to do that. Okay motion's been made and seconded. Is there any
56:54 discussion? All right hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? I think
57:02 everybody said aye. Okay and that motion passes and then I'll move to refer
57:06 favorably back to full council. Motion's been made and seconded.
57:11 Discussion? Madam Chair, thanks for the accommodation of the change that I
57:19 proposed, kind of in the spirit of what other council members were saying. I
57:23 think it's a good process. This is a good leadership by example. I know
57:29 that's what's also intended for the ranked-choice voting leadership by
57:33 example. It occurs to me that the, it is possible, and we even already have
57:42 this to degree, the words aren't perfect rectangles north to south.
57:47 There's a little bit of jog for example in Ward 2 I think on the, between Ward 2 and 3. So
57:53 that could maybe accommodate what Councilman Bixenside was saying, that you
57:59 wouldn't split down the middle of the road if needed for the numbers
58:05 balance that you were talking about Madam Chair, that maybe they could jog
58:09 a little bit. So it wouldn't, so so look like you know locking keys or
58:14 something like that. That's neither here nor there, but but there is a little bit
58:22 of flexibility for the district lines to vary from what we see today.
58:26 And that could also, particularly with Ward 4 is moving to the other side of
58:32 the street, may address the the slight discrepancy in the number of
58:38 residents, but we'll let the planning commission worry about that if
58:44 and when this comes before them. So all right any further discussion? All
58:50 right, hearing none, all those in favor aye, and that motion passes. All right
58:56 I think brings us to the end. I want to maybe just clear out these
59:08 communications that are in here. Yeah I just, Maureen would I just make a motion
59:21 to receive and file the communications? And okay so I will make a motion to
59:28 receive and file the two communications on the docket tonight.
59:31 Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those
59:37 in favor aye, and that motion passes. On the RCV ordinances 21 and 27, I don't know
59:55 if I need, do I need to move to table them? They'll just, we just won't take
59:59 them up. If I table them does that affect what's on our docket list,
1:00:03 Maureen? Yes, if you table them then they'll no longer appear on the docket
1:00:09 until they're brought back. Right, yeah but we wouldn't, I wouldn't dock at the
1:00:14 menu way because we just schedule different things to. All right well
1:00:22 just for the point of clarity maybe I'll just move to to table. I'll
1:00:27 probably should do these one at a time. Ordinance 21-20-26. Second. Motion's
1:00:34 been made and seconded. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor aye,
1:00:39 and that motion passes. Ordinance, and then I'll move to table ordinance 27-20-26.
1:00:45 Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in
1:00:50 favor aye, and that motion passes. Okay with that we have nothing else before
1:00:56 Committee of the Whole. Without objection we are adjourned.