Council considering suspending 3 reading rule

[Jim O'Bryan]

Hi all,

Council person Monique Smith emailed me back and said to go ahead and post her entire letter, so here it is. Thanks Monique.


On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Smith, Monique <Monique.Smith@lakewoodoh.net> wrote:

Good morning, Betsy.

Thank you for the email and for bringing it to my attention that there are some questions and concerns out there about the three reading rule for non-permanent resolutions.

Per your request, I mentioned your email and concerns on the record last night, as you were unable to attend the committee meeting where this ordinance was deliberated and the council meeting (which is mostly where we just take our votes, though additional discussion may sometimes arise there, too). Last night, this matter was placed on second reading and remains in committee for further deliberation. The Law Department has agreed to try to identify a clear definition of what "non-permanent" means when referring to subjects that Resolutions may be used to support, though for as far back as anyone can remember (and our clerk of council has knowledge and experience with many, many past councils) we have only used Resolutions for extremely lightweight topics such as to commend a member of the community, express support for a cause, or thank a person or organization for a contribution to the city. Our current approach is to always vote to suspend the rules and pass the Resolution on first reading, often because the Resolution reflects support for a person who is present on the night that it is read or a significant event/date that is imminent.

Below is a section of the charter that discusses Resolutions, for your reference:

"SECTION 8. ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Each proposed ordinance or resolution shall be introduced in written or printed form and shall not contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly stated in the title; but general appropriation ordinances may contain the various subjects and accounts for which moneys are appropriated. On the passage of each ordinance or resolution the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered upon the Journal. No resolution of a permanent character or ordinance shall be passed until it has been read by title only, unless a majority shall request that it be read in its entirety on three (3) separate days unless the requirement of reading on three (3) separate days has been dispensed with by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all of the members elected to Council taken by yeas and nays and entered upon the Journal, but no ordinance or resolution shall under any circumstances be adopted or passed unless it has been read on three (3) separate days, (a) which changes the amount of salary or compensation for any elected officer of the City, (b) which amends any zoning ordinance, (c) which grants, renews or extends a franchise or other special privilege, (d) which regulates the rate to be charged by a public utility for its services. The enacting clause of all ordinances passed by the Council shall be "Be it ordained by the City of Lakewood." The enacting clause of all ordinances submitted by the initiative shall be "Be it ordained by the people of the City of Lakewood." No ordinance or resolution or section thereof shall be revised or amended unless the new ordinance or resolution contains the entire ordinance or resolution or section to be revised or amended, and the ordinance, resolution, section or sections so amended shall be repealed."

Betsy, our council is truly committed to transparency, and often goes way beyond what our charter requires by way of being open and accessible in every way. We actually create a lot more work and take up a lot more personal time than we have to by doing things this way, but we believe it's what's right for Lakewood. I would be more than happy to talk to you about this or give you examples next time I see you. I appreciate your commitment to protecting that openness, but I assure you that our proposed change to the Resolution rule does not threaten that in any way. We are simply doing some administrative "housekeeping" by bringing our codified ordinances into alignment with our charter. I would encourage you to come to our next committee meeting and/ or give a call to Kevin Butler in his capacity as Law Director for a better explanation than the one I've given in this short email before running off to work this morning. We hope to see you at an upcoming meeting and really do appreciate your input.

bumping this one.

.

[Kate McCarthy]

So though I have been assured from the beginning that the Three Reading to One Reading Change is only about “lightweight issues” and things like “resolutions honoring retirees,” and that this is just "housekeeping", this memo expands these “lightweight issues” to include accepting and transferring funds, and permitting the administration to enter into contracts.

Again, not about ceremonial things, but about contracts and accepting and transferring funds—legislation that UP TIL NOW, ALWAYS GOT THREE READINGS, which allowed members of the public to know about the legislation, before its approval was an established fact in one reading.
...
But in times like these, with the recent total overhaul of our county government, as has already been said by other posters in this long thread, shouldn’t we hang onto every chance we have to give our elected officials the structure they need to assure accountability and transparency, to assure that they take seriously the representation of the people who elected them?

Councilman Anderson, I am very grateful that you chose to share your thought processes with the community on the Deck. It is very helpful and brings a spirit of connection between the City and the community that is very welcome. I respectfully disagree with the ‘yes’ vote you say you will be casting on this.

I understand what you say when you say that “it doesn’t matter whether something is passed under the heading “resolution” or “proposed ordinance,” law directors and judges on the bench will always be in the position to interpret such things should anyone feel the need to object and ask for an opinion or ruling."

This speaks to the problem. If there is a three reading rule, a member of the Council or member of the public can do research, and figure out what they think, or have time to respond. Asking the law director or a judge on the bench to examine something is a big deal compared to simply giving something more time.

This requires a level of attention (and attendance!) that not many can muster. I’m not saying that our Council requires constant watching to make sure the will of the people is represented—especially when so many Council people were appointed and not elected by the public-- but it would certainly be a lot less necessary with a three reading rule.


Betsy Voinovich

This thread is very illustrative. Betsy's thoughtful analysis is spot on. Please read and would love to have some of the lawyers out there weigh in on Law Director Butler's legal opinions. Glad you bumped this Jim and sad to be reminded of an important voice gone too soon, Bryan Schwegler.

[Brian Essi]

I heard this at the Home Show yesterday. At the last City Council meeting Councilman Ryan Nowlin (At-Large) who was recently appointed to fill one of our vacant council seats, introduced an ordinance that would allow City Council to vote on “non-permanent” resolutions in one reading rather than three. His reasoning as I heard it, was that many times Council votes to suspend the rules and pass certain things on one reading—Councilman Nowlin feels that this would save time and expenses on votes, paper and staff resources.

The first thought I had when I heard this was that this is a nightmare. There are noteworthy times when the School Board has moved to pass things in one vote when what that meant was that they (or some of them) didn’t want anyone to have time to respond to the item at hand—whether that meant stopping fellow Board members or the community or the media from having time to respond.

Case in point, Grant School was closed in ONE READING. Some members of the Board, specifically, all of them except Matt Markling, so much wanted the community to HAVE NO TIME TO RESPOND that they actually withheld the reading of which schools were to be kept open, to the moment before the resolution was actually put to the vote. It was a shocking travesty of procedure. When people wondered why some in the audience were so upset, this was why. It was appalling conduct on the part of the Board, except Matt Markling who did everything he could to ask for another reading.

So you can imagine I stopped in my tracks when I heard this about City Council.

I’ve seen many a second reading suspended, many times for normal reasons like a roof needing immediate attention or something like that at Lakewood School Board meetings, so I see how quickly it works. One member says, “I move that we suspend the two reading rule.” Another says, “I second that.” They all vote. One, two, three, four, five. Another member proposes that they do the one reading, they read it, and it usually passes.

Unless City Council conducts its business in a dramatically different fashion than the School Board, I don’t see that doing this takes that much time, energy, paper or staff resources. I don’t see that you would save much, if any, and what about the opposite scenario?

Once there is a resolution to allow one reading for CERTAIN ITEMS valuable time might be spent discerning whether the item before the Council is one of those items or not. And if any member feels that it is not one of those items, they will have to vote to suspend the one reading rule, and extend it to a three reading rule, which was their original operating procedure. This seems like it would waste more time. And if other council members vote against allowing more than one reading, it could be worse than a waste of time.

Forgive me if I don’t have all of the parts of this right because I heard it secondhand. I don't know what the meaning of "non-permanent" is in this context.

I would wait until I had time to gather more information, but according to their website, the next Council meeting is TOMORROW NIGHT and I feel that if any of us in the community want to have anything to say about this, we’d better do it now—in case they vote to suspend the three reading rule on this proposal and pass it tomorrow night.

If anyone our there, or one of our council people could provide more detailed information, it would be great to get some clarification.

As it stands, I’m going to email the City Council right now, with the same message I’m posting here, and say that I am NOT FOR this.

I’ll post the council members' emails here in case you would like to contact them.

david.anderson@lakewoodoh.net, tom.bullock@lakewoodoh.net, shawn.juris@lakewoodoh.net, mary.madigan@lakewoodoh.net, monique.smith@lakewoodoh.net

Thanks for taking the time to read this long post.


Betsy Voinovich

This is all so outrageous.

The Cowboy Summers "Reign" has destroyed over a century of process.

Sneaky, deceitful and secretive.

[T Peppard]

This is all so outrageous.

The Cowboy Summers "Reign" has destroyed over a century of process.

Sneaky, deceitful and secretive.

I will never forget how former Council President Mary Louise Madigan squeezed in those three readings by the fateful date of December 21st. Now they want even less transparency for what they deem "non-permanent?!" ...yes, outrageous indeed.