ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes for Charter Members Meeting
Thursday, February 22, 2007
7:30 a.m.
Charter Member Meeting started at 7:30 am
Purpose: To Review Charter every 7 years.
Session:
Economic Development Conference Room.
Roll Call: Sign –In sheet was sufficient.
1)Dorothy Stratton
2)Ev DeVaul
3)Ron Baker
4)Ken Seidner
5)Dennis VanScoy
6)Bernard Sargent
7)Richard Wolfe, II, Law Director
8)Howard Scanlan
Ken Seidner- Chair Person, called the meeting to order at 7:30 am.
Old Business: Contents of the minutes.
Dorothy Stratton:
a)Summarize the minutes.
Everett DeVaul:
b)Send minutes to Ken Seidner to review.
Ken Seidner:
c)Clearly identify person who is speaking.
d)Record minutes as is.
New Business: The next meeting for Charter Review is upstairs on
3rd floor,
Municipal Bldg. Council Chambers Conference Room on Thursday
3/8/2007. The following meeting on Thursday 3/22/07 at 7:30am
will
be on the 1st floor Economic Development Conference Room.
First Item on the Agenda this A.M. is gender inclusive, in the Charter
using He, His, Him.
Ron Baker - In going through the Charter, there are a number of areas,
where he, him and his are used quite frequently, maybe we should be
making that gender inclusive. My question is Rick, Is that
something that needs to be voted on by the electorate or is there
a way of cleaning up some of the language.
Richard Wolfe: You just cannot go in and clean up language or
change words, or change punctuation or something like that. If it
is an obvious typographical error, something of that nature, then that
could be corrected, but you cannot just change something.
If you are going to look at that subject, then you need to go through
the entire charter looking at all wording and once you have identified
how many places that it is, then figure the simplest way change could
be. Change would need to be voted on.
Dorothy Stratton: Would our recommendation be just to make it
gender inclusive or would we need to have suggestions for the
re-wording from the committee.
Richard Wolfe: Again, without looking at each individual change
that is necessary, I think if you look under the Mayor, for
example. It says the Mayor, and then a couple places it says he,
could change it to the Mayor, and refer to the position, then it is not
referring to any gender, just to the position. Whether that could
be done in every instance or some other way we have to do it, I
don’t know, I would have to look at all the places are that could
be changed,
Dorothy Stratton: But is it the Committees responsibility to make
those individual suggestions or do we just recommend?
Richard Wolfe: It is however you choose to do it. Figure out
where they all are so that we don’t miss anything, that would be
one thing. But if you say we recommend that the Charter be made
gender neutral, then we could do it that way also.
Ken Seidner: We have one thing to work on then.
Richard Wolfe: Take a copy of it and highlight everything that you
think is necessary to be changed then it will all come through me at
some point anyway so I will look at it and try to figure a way to
accomplish that task. I will look at it as well to make sure we get all
the places to make changes/recommendations and not one or two places.
Ken Seidner: Is that something that should be put on the ballot,
to be voted on?
Richard Wolfe: You know, over the years, we have seen
things like that happen with State Legislature and there is even a
section that I looked up that made reference to gender changes.
Of course once it is done, it’s done then you do not have to
worry about it again.
Ron Baker: Does the Charter become a part of the City Ordinances,
or does it stand alone? I know in the City Ordinances, there are
references to where his or he is used .
Richard Wolfe: The Charter is a separate document.
The City’s Constitution and there is a State Constitution and a
whole set of State Statutes. There is a Federal Constitution and
volumes, and volumes of Federal Statutes. It is in part, the
basis upon which we operate. Then you have to understand where
the Charter is silent, then we refer to the State.
Ken Seidner: Anyone else have any more comments on this?
We will then move on the ordinances using and declaring an
Emergency.
Dorothy, Do you want to give us the background, and what your
thoughts are on that?
Dorothy Stratton: I mentioned in our last meeting that we had a concern
for that term “Emergency”. We had a discussion of
that at the City Council meeting. I just feel that if business is
expedited, that is perfectly appropriate; that it would clarify
“Expedited” business from “Emergency “
business. If different terms could be used, and I think you said
Rick Emergency came from the State?
Richard Wolfe: I don’t really view this as a significant issue
but I guess I have dealt with it so much that is just a part of
everyday operation. I understand how there is confusion because
the wording in itself seems to indicate some kind of a dire urgency,
“The City is going to Shut Down Tomorrow” if we don’t
take care of this right now. And it is something that goes way,
way back in both City and State governments, there are 3 pages here and
I tried to alternate them. Pass these around for everyone to get
a copy. I will go back and make a distinction. I hope I am
not taking time to tell you something that everybody already
knows. Just so we clearly understand.
The term is consistent with not only State law but this is in any city
and village throughout the state, you are going to pretty much see the
same or similar language. We have to remember, there are two
separate things that I know you are talking about, passing legislation
all on one night rather than 3 different readings and passing it as an
Emergency. Those are two totally separate things. We need
to understand they are two separate things.
We start off with a proposition that legislation is required to be read
3 times on 3 separate occasions. That is the basic
proposition. But then you have and if you take the first page
731.17 in the upper corner and there is a section 731.17 this talks
about, look at #2. Each ordinance shall be read on 3 different days
provided the legislative authority may dispense with this rule by a
vote of at least ¾ of its members. At this point, we are
only talking about disposing or completing legislation in less that 3
nights. It doesn’t have to be only one, but it is something
less than 3 different nights. And I would suggest to you that the vast
majority of legislation that Council deals with has either been worked
on so much up to the point of a vote or is of such a routine or
customary nature that there is no reason that it should span over
6 weeks, If you just use regular meetings every 1st and
3rd. If you go through all of the legislation that is
passed in the year and you can take each one and look at different
examples but there is just no practical reason to delay.
Now Council as a general rule, things such as re-zoning, and sometimes
appropriations and other kinds of matters will purposely defer, just
pass it once and then maybe dispose of it at another meeting, so that
there is ample opportunity for any kind of community reaction or input
or response. This 3 different days could be Tuesday, Wednesday
and Thursday, meaning you could have special meetings. You could
get it all done in 2 days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, that is 3
different days. You have one Regular meeting and 2 Special meetings or
3 Special meetings.
Howard Scanlan: Do we have to close that 24 hours before the meeting?
Richard Wolfe: You give 24 hours notice unless it is an Emergency
such as if we had a water emergency. Special Meetings have to have 24
hours notice. Those provisions of that are in the Charter as
well. As far as Regular, Special and Emergency are the 3
classifications of meetings. You could also give
notice of 3 meetings at one time. Say there is going to be
a meeting Tuesday night at 7:00pm, Wednesday morning at 9:00, and
Thursday morning at 9:00.
Legislation could be voted on sometimes on one reading and then it is
deferred to the next meeting and then passed on the 2nd and 3rd reading
in one night. So you do it two nights, but here again you are
still dispensing with the rule requiring 3 separate readings, 3
separate nights. You hear that motion, it is becoming a routine
thing and then it is usually because there is no reason to just delay.
In order to keep things moving and get on with our business and take
care of the bidding or get the application in or whatever it is.
In Councils judgment they may just want to go ahead and get it done at
that time. When there is no reason what-so-ever for something to
be done that quickly, we don’t, but most times there is no
practical reason to delay. That is how many times it is read and how
many different meetings is involved. That is State Law.
Dorothy Stratton: Are these pages from City Hall?
Richard Wolfe: The one 731.17, that is State Law, and the second
to the last page is 731.30, and the one in the middle is the Charter
Section.
Okay, that requires ¾ vote with a 5 member Council, that
requires 4 members to vote for that and sometimes if 2 members
didn’t want to then it would pass on the 1st reading and then it
would just automatically be deferred because of the motion to suspend
the rule requiring 3 separate readings, 3 separate nights does not get
a minimum of 4 votes then it fails and that is as far as they can go
with that piece of legislation that night. So in that instance,
lets just say there was some issue that there was 3 members of Council
for and 2 members against and was going to stay that way all the
way along. The typical rule for parliamentary procedure, the minority
can have its say, but the majority will have its way. So
legislation could pass on 3 readings eventually even if there are not 4
people that support it. The other issue then is what is
called the Emergency clause and that has to do with nothing more, but
it has to do solely with the issue of when the legislation becomes
effective. That requires 2/3 vote. Now with a 5 member
Council however, 2/3 is still 4. So it still takes 4 to pass
legislation as an Emergency. If it was drafted as an Emergency
but it did not get 4 votes, and it was passed 3 times by a majority,
then it passes even though the emergency clause is there, it passes as
a non-emergency because it did not get the required number of votes
they need to meet the provisions of the Emergency Clause. The
reason we are talking about when it becomes effective is that there is
what is known as the referendum period. Referendum Period is 30 days
following the passage of legislation and you have provisions no only in
state law but there is also in the Charter about Referendum. That is
where if someone doesn’t like it, there is provision and the
actions of Council is provisions for the circulation of the petition
requiring that a certain number of signatures based on the last
election for governor, I think it is 10% that I looked at, then I
assuming that the petition was in proper form and the minimum
number of valid signatures were obtained within a required
30 day period. Legislation would be then referred back to Council
to either repeal it or if they refuse to repeal it, then it must go on
the ballot. Now we have probably had, I am just guessing 3
or 4 maybe 5 of those in the last 30 years. It is not
something that should happen often but it is always there .
One of the things that is kind of interesting is that under the state
law, there are certain types of legislation that are not subject to a
referendum if passed as an Emergency, however our Charter makes all
legislature subject to a Referendum so sometimes if there might be an
annexation or something to do with a construction issue or
something, we have to be a little careful about acting within
that 30 day period if we think there is any possibility or
prospect of a Referendum or maybe if there is a dedication of an
allotment, people are building houses or if you recall, the new area
that Samaritan built out there on Mifflin and Route 42. There is
a lot of concern about that. If those concerns hadn’t been
alleviated, that could have been something that might have
been subject to a Referendum. So the people who are
engaging in the project would have to be attentive to that and they
will proceed at their own risk within the first 30-day
period. If it is passed as an Emergency, it becomes
effective immediately, and if not then it is not effective for at least
30 days. So you could have a non-emergency, non-suspension of the
rule of legislation that in the regular course of business it would
take you almost 2 ½ months because you took 3 different Regular
Meetings to pass it then it didn’t become effective for 30
days. I would submit to you that the City is a business and
in today’s operation of City business, in most instances there is
just no reason to stretch legislation out over that kind of a period of
time. It is common and routine that legislation is prepared as an
Emergency so it can become effective as quickly as possible and it is
common and routine that Council votes to suspend the rule requiring 3
separate readings, 3 separate nights. Not because they are trying
to do something under the radar or slide anything by, usually all the
Councils I have worked with have been diligent, have done their
homework and Mr. Sargent knows that. A lot of meetings, a lot of
discussion and so that is pretty much an overview. I don’t
think there is really any need to change it. We explain it
frequently to the people who have questions about it but I don’t
think it is that big an issue. If we start changing
terminology it might end up being more confusing to people more than it
is right now.
Dorothy Stratton: You said that something had only been done 5 or 6
times, is that the Referendum?.
Richard Wolfe: I don’t have an exact number, This is not
something that happens frequently. There was an issue on
re-zoning out by the Park many years ago, and if you go back far enough
I suppose Liquor by the glass was a ballot issue. There has
even been a few where there has been an attempt to a referendum but it
was not successful, either they did not get it done in time,
didn’t have a proper form, or enough signatures so it is a
process that is there, it is available, it isn’t meant to happen
often. We elect Council members to conduct the City’s
business (to get it to the voters on legislation), so it really
isn’t consistent with the whole concept of elected legislative
government that the voters would vote on every issue that comes before
Council so it would only be those that are of great community concern
or some dispute or issue about if you get enough people that would sign
the petition and want to vote on it.
Dorothy Stratton: If I may ask about the City Charter , Section
73. Emergency Ordinances. Ordinances passed as Emergency measures
or measures necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace.
Richard Wolfe: That is all saying the same thing because those
are the buzz words. This Ordinance is hereby declared
to be an Emergency measure being necessary for the preservation of
public peace, property, health safety and welfare for the reason that
the grant application is due on the 30th of the month and this is the
15th of the month. Sometimes it may be fairly generic, statement
of Emergency, other times there is more specific reasons that are put
in.
Dorothy Stratton: This is the point where the people that we are
talking to may have felt confused and may be, you know
railroaded. And so I bring it only as a concern that that wording
seems to be very limited and yet the use of it in conducting City
Council business is much more broad and I guess from a citizens point
of view, I feel it would probably be worth some kind of clarification
just so that kind of confusion didn’t come off at the time
something that didn’t seem to be an emergency was presented that
have strong feelings and I just felt at the time when that group
was before City Council that a lot of their negative feelings would
have been alleviated if it hadn’t been called an emergency that
didn’t seem to meet that definition. So we as a committee
could then go on and consider that in light of what you said about the
way the process was done. (The Grant Street Closing)
Richard Wolfe: That certainly wasn’t one that was railroaded, it
was discussed over a long, long period of time and it was just that by
the time Council was ready to make a decision, they were ready to make
a decision. So once they reached that point, (it would
work). You know, sometimes people ask questions about it
and we try to answer it then we move on. Without me becoming
redundant, I don’t know if there is any more I can explain about
that unless you have another question.
Dorothy Stratton: No. I think that is very helpful to us.
Ken Seidner: Anybody else have anything?
Ev DeVaul: Rick, Since you were invited to discuss this
stuff, are there any things in the Charter that you feel should be
reviewed by this Committee?
Richard Wolfe: You know I have been through this process 3 or 4
times now and I have files from the last Charter review and the one
before that and the one before that. So from my perspective, I
think these issues that have come up to me have been addressed by this
time. There are maybe some things in there that don’t get
utilized very often but if necessary they are there and can fall back
on them. I don’t know, I don’t have anything specific that
I think is crying out to be changed.
Dorothy Strattion: I think that there were some questions which were
the reasons that was the main reason that Rick was invited.
Ken Seidner: Any other comments?
The next item of discussion were the assessments.
Ev DeVaul: This was given to us and we had all this other legal
language in here from Barry Keefe.
Ken Seidner: That last Committee that we had on this 7 years ago
that was one of the recommendations and I don’t think Council
acted on that and was reviewing the assessment procedures within the
city and we had a whole packet of stuff here about 3 pages that Barry
presented to us and I read it 3-4 times, it was like banging my head
against the wall. Howard did some research and sent
out a bunch more stuff.
Richard Wolfe:The reason that we had input from Mr. Keefe and I have
know him for many years, he is with the firm Squire, Sanders and
Dempsey and that firm has served as bond Council for the City of
Ashland and that is a very specialized endeavor and we have issued
bonds and anticipation for projects and different things as we have
done. Many thousands and sometimes Millions of dollars, and that
is very specialized area so that is why we referred to them for that.
Along the same line are special assessments. There was one for
the Claremont Garmon Ave. Storm Sewer project and there has been some
others over the years. The process for assessments is set out in
state law because if you look at all these different sections in his
proposal, he makes reference to some 700 section of the State code and
it is dealing with municipal law and that is so these pages I gave you
731, you look at the numbers left of the decimal, so 700 section is
municipal law it is all pretty well covered in state law and I think,
can we put in the Charter? yes, do we need to? Probably not, unless we
wanted to make some slight differences to what is provided in the state
law and all the assessments that we have done during my Tenure have all
been accomplished under State law and they all have proceeded properly
so is it something we need to do? I don’t think so, I don’t
think there is a crying need for it. Is it something we can
do? That is why it was considered last time and Council just
decided to defer. I haven’t re-read all the proposals to see how
or what might differ or what might make it any different than what we
already have under State Law and the other thing we would have to look
at is whether there has been any changes in the law in the last 7 years
that would require this to be updated.
Howard Scanlan: There might be one like it in section
93. 729.06 ORC It does not impose a 5% penalty and if
connections are not installed in 30 days, from date of service, -- may
be done. And the cost therefore with a forfeiture of 5%.
You’re looking at the assessment and recommendations. The
final section 729.06
It says 5% assessment on it. That might have happened in the last
7 years. This might have to be changed.
Richard Wolfe: We would probably want to ask for an update.
This is a specialized area that there are people, this is all they do
is bonds and assessment work and if this something this committee is
seriously looking at then I would recommend, I can get a hold of Barry
and say Hey, Could you look at what you gave us 7 years ago and update
it to make sure everything is okay?
Ron Baker : I am still confused, of this information, so
this is our responsibility to be doing as part of the Charter?
Richard Wolfe: Well, you are not necessarily supposed to be
the drafters of legal language. It is a review, to review areas
that are either obsolete or not effective or whatever it may be. You
would think over a period of time that the more this is done, the fewer
things that would need to be addressed and maybe not necessarily so. It
isn’t something that you would anticipate a lot of changes every
time.
Ev Devaul: I guess my point is, just by saying have Barry
do this, this is costing the city money in order to have it done and to
me I would think Rick would be the one through his normal
responsibilities of his job to make sure this stuff is updated. I am
confused if that is our role to make that recommendation or spend that
time or spend that money. So that is why I just question that. It
should be done and I am in favor of it but if it shouldn’t be
done or if it is Rick’s responsibility, I don’t see
spending several hundred dollars of the city’s money to have this
done unless Rick would be the one saying it should be done.
Ken Seidner: I think you mentioned Rick though that anything you
do or anything along this line basically follows State Law.
The States Statutes already have been changed on this, it is already
there so anything that we do would follow the State Law.
Richard Wolfe: Also you don’t have to necessarily wait
until you are all done, to submit suggestions to Council. You can
maybe as you are going along say you know this is something we were
seriously thinking about and kind of get some feedback from Council as
you go along too. I am sure they would be willing to
periodically review your progress if you want to. There is no
hard and fast rules about how you have to do this.
Dorothy Stratton: So if we would not ask for this kind of review and
make recommendations then how would it come to awareness that there had
been a change? Just when something came up and you needed to refer to
State Law then? If the State Law has changed and it would impact
on something that was being done here and a formal review had not been
done, then it would just come to your awareness when it became an issue?
Richard Wolfe: Well Yes and part of my everyday work is to try to
stay abreast of changes and became aware of things that happen at the
State level and how they affect cities. I get publications and
try to stay on top of that stuff.
Dorothy Stratton: Okay, so then maybe what this committee would
do would not have any positive impact on you doing your job. You
would just be reviewing it anyway when it came up as an issue?
Richard Wolfe: Well I am not saying that this committee’s
work wouldn’t have a positive impact.
Dorothy Stratton: We’re trying to decide if it is worth our
having you check with Barry now and to your thinking about the way you
carry out your job, would it help for the committee to have you contact
Barry now and make a recommendation or should we just let you do your
job as it comes along with regard to catching up with the State Law.
Richard Wolfe: I will just give Barry a call and ask him how he feels
about this and how strongly if he thinks if this is something we should
look at further. Then I will get back with you guys and let you
know if it is something we need to look at in more detail. It has not
really been a problem. It isn’t something that happens a
lot. So You know we just need to be careful about changing the
rules for a few isolated circumstances unless there is a real great
need for it.
Howard Scanlan: Isn’t it somewhere in title 7 that says
there is nothing in the Charter that Ohio Revised Code is dominant?
Ken Seidner: Okay, if you get a response, will you give it to
Valarie and she will get a hold of us.
Have we gotten any response from any of the Departments based on that
letter we sent out on February 8?
Valarie if you could just send out a reminder letter to all departments
to get a response.
Howard Scanlan: It has to do with section 36 of the
Charter. Actually the Law Director came up also.
Could be an appointed position. So could the director of
finance. The main concern was there are no qualifications,
anybody can run for this. Straight out of high school, can run
for this.
Richard Wolfe- I guess that is where you have to have a little faith in
the electorate because the same would be true for State
Representatives, Governor, State Office Holders with regards, I
don’t know if you are asking, in regards to the position of the
Director of Law.
Howard Scanlan: We dropped that one fast because everything is pretty
well covered in it. It could be an appointed position is what he
was saying.
Richard Wolfe: I think that it is a good position to be elected,
at least so that the Law Director is independent and not beholding to
the Mayor or Council and I don’t mean this in any derogatory way
but at various times over the years, I have been asked questions where
I have been kind of given the answers somebody wants to hear before
they ask the question and If my job was dependent on keeping Council
happy or the Mayor happy and always giving them the answer they want to
hear then that might affect how I do my job; and there are cities where
the Law Director is actually two separate positions; in larger cities
there is a city attorney and there is a city prosecutor. The Law
Director in Ashland is both of those rolled into one. I am the
prosecutor for Municipal Court. There is only one Municipal
Court in the County so I have Countywide Jurisdiction; it is always
hard for people to understand why somebody gets into a fight down south
of Loudonville, the Law Director’s office in Ashland is handling
it. Well, It is because, as the elected Attorney for the City and
the only City in the County and the only Municipal Court in the
County; I am the prosecutor for that Court. So I have
Jurisdiction over the City of Ashland and all of the unincorporated
area of the County. There are 8 incorporated villages and each of
those villages have their own solicitor and that is the only areas that
the Law Director’s office doesn’t have jurisdiction. I just
think that is a good many times an independent elected official plus
you have the succession provisions right now I am acting Mayor, this
week the Mayor is out of town so there has been many times that I have
filled in as Mayor when Mayor Richey was disabled for several weeks and
Mayor Cellar was out for some period of time, I had performed all of
duties and responsibilities of the Mayor. I hired people, I fired
some people. I signed the requisition forms and all of
those kind of things. So, you know, the process of acting
succession, not succession of the office, but to perform the
duties. It goes Mayor, Director of Law, and Director of
Finance. Now if all three are either disabled, unable to perform
their duties or out of town, I guess it goes to the Fire Chief.
No, It would probably the President of Council. We have never had
any type of situation where that has been the issue.
Ron Baker: You bring a good point Rick, because this is one thing
that came to my attention. There is still some interest in
recommendations item number 1)where calling the Mayor to appoint no
more than 2 candidates to the eligibility list with motion to police
and fire chief.
No in the early 1980’s the Charter Review Commission at that time
was faced with a proposal to take the police and fire chief out of
Civil Service and man that is when I fought tooth and nail because I
don’t see, just like your talking Rick. Then you are at the
beckon call of the Mayor. I had run-ins with the Mayors that
wanted me to do something that was not the right thing to do and you do
need to be independent and do your job.
Richard Wolfe: You’re right, there are arguments on both
sides. And at one time I know that one of those recommendations;
to go outside of Civil Service actually came from one of the Police
Chiefs, so you know, there are different views on that.
Ron Baker: Well, it can remain in Civil Service but you can also
allow outside people to apply, but it is still under Civil Service
which I don’t think is a bad idea.
Richard Wolfe: Cleveland is an example where the Mayor appoints
the Police Chief, I don’t know about the Fire Chief. It
becomes somewhat of a political thing and I don’t think that is
the healthiest situation for safety services or emergency services.
Ken Seidner: I don’t know if any of you remember, but the
last commission that I was on, we looked at this too, where the
appointment or election of a Law Director and we kicked it around a lot
and we decided it should stay on that position.
And to me the other thing that wasn’t mentioned in this
letter, we also looked at the same thing with the Finance
Director. First of all I don’t see the electorate electing
anybody that is not an Attorney. It is a requirement.
The Finance Director is another one. We kicked that around,
should the Finance Director be required to be a CPA, you know and we
went through that also and we let that drop too. I
think the Finance Director needs to have some kind of financial
background. In recent memory I cannot imagine, I don’t know
of any Finance Director of the City that hadn’t had some
extensive financial background. I know Bill Strine before he
became Mayor was, he worked in Banking for 20 years before he became
Finance Director. I think probably the person that I can remember
in my memory who have at least financial background was Nancy, but then
she worked for the City in that Department.
Richard Wolfe: Then you get into the discussion of salaries and
qualifications and as you raise qualifications, the demand for salary
raises. The first year I was Law Director, the salary was
12,000.00 dollars. Another lifetime ago.
Ken Seidner: Well, we are getting into that magic hour
here. Is there anything anyone would like to add at this
point? Any questions?
Richard Wolfe: I just want to make a comment regarding the
minutes. A verbatim record is maybe not necessary, in some
respects it might inhibit the free and open discussion because
you might say something and then after discussion you want to change
your mind about it or whatever. You know you might want to think
about that a little bit more, in how you want to handle that. Do
you really need everybody’s every word? Or can you say that we
discussed the subject of such. Now if you come to a conclusion or a
consensus, then that is obviously very important but you are all
capable of writing minutes or writing notes for yourself and keeping
notes as to what the points were or what you were discussing. You
know there are points on both sides of that issue but, I guess at some
point you can say if somebody wants to say something and they want it
off the record, just say so, say I would like this off the
record. On the other hand, if a reporter is here, you cannot ask
the reporter to leave. They have a right to be here. It comes
down to being more practical consideration than anything else and if
the consensus is that you really want to have record of everything that
was said here, fine, that is your choice.
Everett DeVaul: I certainly didn’t request the record, I
just don’t want Valarie to assume or summarizing things that
really should be reviewed by Ken or someone to really improve the
minutes for us. I am not pushing verbatim stuff, I just
don’t think that it is Valarie’s job.
Richard Wolfe: I don’t think that she needs to necessarily
summarize what somebody’s else’s statements are, she can
just record that there was discussion on this and that these points
were made. We certainly would not put the responsibility on
anyone else to summarize the minutes. And you all are
certainly welcome to submit anything in writing for the record as well
if you have done some research on an issue and you want to put it in
the minutes and say here is my thoughts on this, you are certainly
welcome to do that.
Ken Seidner: Well, again, Howard submitted those research papers
he did on the Charter and I agree, if you want to alter what you say or
clarify a point, obviously you can bring it to the next meeting and
have that included.
Richard Wolfe: Conversational speech’s are usually not
completely, grammatically correct and sometimes we see it, a perfect
example was a transcript from a court case and did I say that, is that
the way I talk?
Everett DeVaul: The only other thing would be is to put something
in the paper, in the media inviting anybody else to respond. We
did it with the City employees but we should do it with everyone.
Ken Seidner: Valarie if you could send another letter
update reminding the public , employees, Department heads that we are
expecting a response for the Charter?
Richard Wolfe: You can also ask Council to rent space in the
Times Gazette for press release. And you might periodically meet
once a month and say we have had 3 meetings and we are looking at
various issues and we met with so and so and we want to reiterate that
we welcome any input anyone might have then you have your forum right
there and you made your announcements and that would mean you are
keeping Council aware. I don’t think that Council is
looking for a meeting by meeting report but I am sure they would
welcome you if you came to a Council meeting just to give them an
update. Council has the utmost confidence in this committee
because you all expressed an interest and Council appointed you and
charged you with the responsibilities so periodically, that is the way
to get your message out too, through the Council Meetings.
Adjournment:
Move to be adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted by
Valarie Bishoff
Clerk of City Council