The Observation Deck

Hi all,

Thank you very much for all of this info. I am not in the loop in terms of procedural rules for City Council. I have found all of your responses very helpful in understanding this situation.

Charlie, thank you for exactly what I was looking for, an example that would worry me. I don't think appointments should necessarily be done in one reading. I think the only way the community can participate in this process is by having a chance to know what's happening and who is being considered for appointment.

I agree with what Jim says here:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:The three reading allows people that might be opposed to do their homework and to build a case against something. That could be a resolution for the Observer, Shawn Juris' appointment, or a clarification or needed additional language to make something better or redefine exactly what is going on.

Many people do not attend for various reasons so the first reading might catch them at
home watching it on TV, or hearing it through the grapevine. I do not see this as a bad thing.

I see the one reading ruling, simple taking people, residents and constituents out of the
equation, and I am not convinced that is ever a good thing.

In an era when more oversight is needed at all levels of government not less and things
are happening on faster level. Is it really that important? Will it help us balance the
budget? Address the needs of the community or merely the needs of council? Not that
either is a bad thing by themselves.

Appointments might be temporary, but they last for a long time. If the community had a problem with an appointment, they deserve a chance to respond, it is their ONLY way to weigh in because they have not had an opportunity to vote.

I understand and appreciate Kevin's explanation but these resolutions concern some pretty permanent "impermanent" things.

If I'm getting this right, the three reading rule can be suspended at any time, Council can suspend it as needed, and then there won't be all the paperwork and time taken with two more readings, if they suspend them on the first read.

And Steve, this is pretty interesting if not alarming:

Steve Davis wrote:

"...Council may thereupon pass an ordinance by the vote of two-thirds of all members elected thereto, directing such appropriation to proceed." City Charter

This sort of language doesn’t appear to exist elsewhere in the Charter, though I may have missed some.

Read literally, Mr. Nowlin, Mr. Juris, and Mr. Anderson may not be qualified to vote on Suspension of Rules relative to dispensing of readings for resolution of a permanent character or ordinance, or on appropriation of property, because they are APPOINTED members of Council, NOT ELECTED. Again, the Charter language seems to be very specific.

So it's possible that it's not legitimate for Mr. Nowlin to propose this change.

And Meg, yes, I have definitely been affected by my interaction with the School Board, and Council procedure may be dramatically different, but my fellow responders on the Deck have convinced me that there is still reason to be concerned about a proposal to get rid of a three reading rule.

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy Voinovich wrote:And Steve, this is pretty interesting if not alarming:

Steve Davis wrote:

"...Council may thereupon pass an ordinance by the vote of two-thirds of all members elected thereto, directing such appropriation to proceed." City Charter

This sort of language doesn’t appear to exist elsewhere in the Charter, though I may have missed some.

Read literally, Mr. Nowlin, Mr. Juris, and Mr. Anderson may not be qualified to vote on Suspension of Rules relative to dispensing of readings for resolution of a permanent character or ordinance, or on appropriation of property, because they are APPOINTED members of Council, NOT ELECTED. Again, the Charter language seems to be very specific.

So it's possible that it's not legitimate for Mr. Nowlin to propose this change.

Betsy,

It IS interesting, and sort of funny, but probably not alarming. I'm not sure of the implications, but that language should be amended, especially considering how many appointees are now on Council.

Steve

.

Steve----You bring up a very interesting point on the use of "members" of council vs "elected" members of council. At first glance it would seem to be just sloppy attention to detail that can easily occur especially when the charter is being reviewed and revised as required every 10 years by a commission.
However, from my very beginning in politics and as Ward Leader I always felt it was one of my responsibilities to game play nefarious scenarios.
Here, one of the references of elected members has to do with transfer of property. What if-----------some council members didn't want to "go along" with a popular or lucrative (to whom?) transfer of property? If they could be encouraged to resign from council, their replacements would be appointees, not elected and hence ineligible according to a strict reading of the Charter to vote on a property transfer. Then, presumably the vote would go in favor of the transfer.
Was this intended in the Charter or merely bad technology in merging different Word documents?
Stan Austin

Stan Austin wrote:Steve----You bring up a very interesting point on the use of "members" of council vs "elected" members of council. At first glance it would seem to be just sloppy attention to detail that can easily occur especially when the charter is being reviewed and revised as required every 10 years by a commission.
However, from my very beginning in politics and as Ward Leader I always felt it was one of my responsibilities to game play nefarious scenarios.
Here, one of the references of elected members has to do with transfer of property. What if-----------some council members didn't want to "go along" with a popular or lucrative (to whom?) transfer of property? If they could be encouraged to resign from council, their replacements would be appointees, not elected and hence ineligible according to a strict reading of the Charter to vote on a property transfer. Then, presumably the vote would go in favor of the transfer.

Your mind is evil, like mine. I can think of many strange scenarios that could be built out of this.

Stan Austin wrote:Was this intended in the Charter or merely bad technology in merging different Word documents?

Darned if I know. You have to remember that the Charter Commission is not the last group in the chain to a Charter ballot issue. Council always gets the opportunity to choose and edit suggestions before the ballot, and from my experience, they always make changes, or cherry-pick specific items. That can drastically change the meaning and context of anything within the document.


Steve

.

Whether it's sloppy or not, it's in the legal governing document of the city. Some lawyer could really have a field day with this one if they wanted to.

Bryan--- exactly, if the Courts got hung up for over 3 years on a friggin' dog park with hardly any financial ramifications, just think of how tangled something like this could be with something like hypothetical developments on the Spitzer site, Giant Eagle site, Tuffy Muffler site-- especially if a Ginormous Heavy Weight like WalMart came into the picture?
Stan

Jim,

The leashed dog program was done by an ordinance not a resolution. Nowlin's Ordinance only effects resolutions.

As for Nowlin being the new guy to bring this forward I bet he was not alone in thinking about it and probably had some help drafting it. I imagine this has been in the mind of council members for a while and right now may have just been the perfect storm to bring this forward.

Steve,

Thanks for pointing this out! I think it will be very important for Council to amended those parts of the charter before it causes some big problems.

Christopher

I am not picking on Nowlin, I am sure he had a bunch of help. Might even of had this one
handed to him as Bullock did the Pit Bull one.

And I was using leashed dogs as an example, nothing more.

My point is, and stays. I like the fact that it takes maybe 3 minutes to say, Emergency one
reading, with the name of who did it. I like the public record to go back on now.

I am not thinking there is anything dastardly now, we have a good group. But in the future
we may not be so lucky. I like checks and balances, and process.

But as always, I appreciate their views, your views, and even Steve's views. Easier to read
here then him yelling on the phone at me!

.

Jim, I respect your point, and as I have said before I really have not put much thought into this or made up an opinion, I just wanted to make sure and correct some inaccuracies, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Christopher Bindel wrote:Jim, I respect your point, and as I have said before I really have not put much thought into this or made up an opinion, I just wanted to make sure and correct some inaccuracies, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Christopher

And I thank you for keeping it real, and for the corrections.

It is one of the things I like about you and love about this project.

I got a call from a well know lurker, and he commented on just how good the conversation
and the participants were. We came with questions, ideas, fears, and others came with
facts, comments, laws/rules, and together we helped others understand our concerns, and
hopefully what is going on in this town.

It is all good.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:My point is, and stays. I like the fact that it takes maybe 3 minutes to say, Emergency one
reading, with the name of who did it. I like the public record to go back on now.

I am not thinking there is anything dastardly now, we have a good group. But in the future
we may not be so lucky. I like checks and balances, and process.

Whether it’s this group or any other group, I’m perfectly fine with one reading for resolutions on commendations, recognition, committee appointments, accepting funds, applying for grants and other like actions. Do we really need a public watchdog for these?

Jim O'Bryan wrote:I got a call from a well know lurker, and he commented on just how good the conversation
and the participants were. We came with questions, ideas, fears, and others came with
facts, comments, laws/rules, and together we helped others understand our concerns, and
hopefully what is going on in this town.

It is all good.

.

Yes, it is all good. Tell your well known lurker to get out of the cheap seats and get in the game!

Hello, Betsy and all.

I did not access the Internet Sunday and Monday and only learned about your email and this thread below last night during council. I apologize for not responding. I've also just finished reading the OD conversation. You and others raise some very valid points. Council had a second reading of this proposal last night and referred it back to Councilman Nowlin's committee. Law Director Butler has agreed to do a bit more research and report to council. In addition to reaching any member of council directly, you and all interested will be informed of dates and times when the committee and council will be discussing this matter further.

Personally, I am trying to balance the needs to align our ordinance with the charter, as Director Butler explained, with my desire to have the most efficient, effective and accountable council five, 10, 15, 20 years down the road.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Councilman, Ward 1

Charley

The longest serving person on council is council president Mary Louise Madigan. The next
longest that I can think of is Bryan Powers who has been re-elected once since his
appointment. I would think and hope the entirety of council would want us watching them
and joining the discussion. Hell these people are no different from you and me. Just because
they are on council, doesn't make them all that much more attuned or different than they
were before getting appointed or elected.

This is one of the many reasons I am always amused when people see politicians make bad
in both public and private life. They are just humans.

I do not see the problem with putting it all on record, as it stands. It is not like these meetings are running hours over, which is the reason why people are timed. My god
what would council do if a bunch of people wanted to talk, or one for more than 10
minutes?!! Oh the horror. Talking to constituents!!!!!

Well maybe they should put it to a vote of the people in the next voting cycle.

.

David Anderson wrote:Hello, Betsy and all.

I did not access the Internet Sunday and Monday and only learned about your email and this thread below last night during council. I apologize for not responding. I've also just finished reading the OD conversation. You and others raise some very valid points. Council had a second reading of this proposal last night and referred it back to Councilman Nowlin's committee. Law Director Butler has agreed to do a bit more research and report to council.

In addition to reaching any member of council directly, you and all interested will be informed of dates and times when the committee and council will be discussing this matter further.

Personally, I am trying to balance the needs to align our ordinance with the charter, as Director Butler explained, with my desire to have the most efficient, effective and accountable council five, 10, 15, 20 years down the road.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Councilman, Ward 1

Hi David,

Thanks for responding here, and in email, and thank you for promising to inform us of when the council will be discussing this matter further. It's a pleasure to have someone who has brought such good ideas to the Deck, now on Council and paying attention.

There's no way we can get to both School Board and Council meetings on the same night, which is another issue the community should probably bring up to both groups (I'm sure it has been before.)

Charlie Page wrote:Whether it’s this group or any other group, I’m perfectly fine with one reading for resolutions on commendations, recognition, committee appointments, accepting funds, applying for grants and other like actions. Do we really need a public watchdog for these?

Hi Charlie,

Some of the things you mentioned are EXACTLY the things I worry about. Accepting funds, applying for grants, things that might possibly not be completely straightforward or people might have questions about. Grants for what, going for what, conditions met, how? And "the like" is one of those great expressions. I want everything that comes under "the like" read three times. Actually I'm joking, but I'm so worried about transparency, I'd rather see every single instance listed.

I also agree with you that lurkers should come forward and post; it's fun!



To bring everybody up to date, I emailed all of the Council members as I said I would, pointing out everybody's comments here. Here's my letter:



Dear Lakewood City Council Members,

I am concerned about Councilman Nowlin's proposal to change the way Council votes on “non-permanent” resolutions from three readings to one.

I posted my concerns on the Lakewood Observer Observation Deck (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10038) yesterday to get some feedback from the rest of the community.

The concern I have in essence is that having only one reading opens the door to having resolutions passed in one reading that require public attention, scrutiny or debate. As it stands now, Council has to move to suspend the three reading rule, when it's appropriate, ie, resolutions honoring people for their service, etc. It seems more democratic, as well as transparent, to continue this process.

As Jim O'Bryan said more succinctly than me on the Observation Deck today:

"The three reading allows people that might be opposed to do their homework and to build a case against something. That could be a resolution for the Observer, Shawn Juris' appointment, or a clarification or needed additional language to make something better or redefine exactly what is going on.

Many people do not attend for various reasons so the first reading might catch them at home watching it on TV, or hearing it through the grapevine. I do not see this as a bad thing.

I see the one reading rule, simply taking people, residents and constituents out of the equation, and I am not convinced that is ever a good thing.

In an era when more oversight is needed at all levels of government not less, and things are happening on faster level is it really that important? Will it help us balance the budget, address the needs of the community or merely the needs of council? Not that either is a bad thing by themselves."

I can't come to the meeting tonight, as I am committed to attend the School Board meeting which takes place at the same time. I'm not sure what the formal process is to bring things before the Council by email, but whatever that process is, that's what I am trying to do with this letter.

I know I represent at least five other concerned residents as is evidenced by their commentary on the Observation Deck.

Please bring this letter to the attention of those in attendance during the public input session of tonight's meeting, if possible, and forgive me if the manner in
which I'm asking for this is not correct procedure.


Thank you very much.

Betsy Voinovich

Lakewood resident



I received email responses from both Council members, David Anderson and Monique Smith.

Monique's email informed me that she mentioned my email on the record at Monday night's Council meeting. She said that this matter was placed on second reading and remains in committee for further deliberation. She went on to say that 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.

She said as far back as anyone can remember (citing the clerk of Council's much longer memory, through many administrations) Resolutions have been used for extremely lightweight topics like commending a member of the community or expressing support for a cause, and they often suspend the 3 reading rule because the person being commended is present that night at the meeting.


She included in her email a section of the charter that discusses Resolutions:

"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."



Monique's letter went on to explain things to me in more detail. I emailed her back and asked her if it was okay for me to print her letter here, and if she agrees, I'll post it. I found her very responsive and helpful. I am so pleased that she brought this to the public input part of their session, and that she took the time to describe the response to me.

I'm also pleased to look at more of the Charter. As I said earlier, I am a novice at looking at charters, and Steve Davis may tease me about it, but it all can look kind of alarming on a first read. Steve, I am glad you around to put things in perspective.

So what concerns me in my possibly naive state about this section of the Charter is here:

"general appropriation ordinances may contain the various subjects and accounts for which moneys are appropriated." lines 4 and 5 from the Charter excerpt above

It doesn't seem that the Charter differentiates between ordinances and resolutions, it keeps saying both (actually "or": "ordinances or resolutions.") If a resolution can "contain subjects and accounts for which moneys are appropriated" it sounds like it might be deserving of three reads possibly.

That might only be ordinances, and the change Councilman Nowlin proposes might only have to do with resolutions, but the lack of distinction is troubling-- though as I have said, I'm not good at reading this stuff. (And, is it okay if Councilman Nowlin, not being "elected" as stated above and as Steve Davis already pointed out, proposes this?)

End of another very long post!

Thank you Monique Smith for bringing our concerns to Council and for your prompt and very thorough reply. Thank you also David Anderson for your prompt attention and promise to keep us in the loop on this subject. (And thanks everyone here for my continuing education.)

Betsy Voinovich

The absence of replies out to be noted, also.

Stan Austin