Council considering suspending 3 reading rule

[Betsy Voinovich]

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

[Kristine Pagsuyoin]

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.

Thanks for the information, Betsy. I have similar feelings about the two-reading rule as it pertains to the Lakewood Board of Education.

I just want to mention; however, that the Lakewood Board of Education meeting is also tomorrow night. For a long time Council and School Board meetings have fallen on the same Monday nights. It has been mentioned before, but I think it is important to bring this issue up again. I would urge that either Council or the School Board change their meeting schedule so that the two meetings don't fall on the same Monday. I think many residents want to attend both, but are always faced with choosing one over another.

[dl meckes]

We won't need to worry our heads about all of these things. Soon everyone will be appointed to office and we won't need to be represented by elected officials.

[Kevin Butler]

Betsy, this proposal merely brings our ordinances in line with our municipal "constitution" -- the charter.

The charter requires three readings for "resolution[s] of a permanent character or ordinance[s]," unless Council suspends the rules requiring three readings in order to adopt items on fewer than three readings. Thus, resolutions of an impermanent character wouldn't need more than one reading under the charter.

Section 121.10 of the Codified Ordinances nearly restates this charter provision, but requires three readings for ordinances and all resolutions, regardless of whether those resolutions are considered permanent. Council may still vote to suspend the rules, however. The practical effect is that Council under this ordinance has voted to suspend the rules requiring three readings on even impermanent resolutions -- items congratulating city retirees, for instance, or voicing Council's support for legislation elsewhere -- requiring a level of formality that is neither contemplated in the charter nor warranted.

Councilman Nowlin's proposal, if adopted, would resolve this discrepancy, bringing Section 121.10 in line with the citizens' intent as announced in the charter. I hope that explanation helps.

[Christopher Bindel]

Ok, so I haven't read this thread yet, but just saw the post for it on facebook and I just have to say that who ever wrote it is partaking in sensationalism that the observer claims to be against.

A potential nightmare as a City Council that does not even recognize Sunshine Week, that does not use all of the ways at their disposal to get information out, now decides it no longer has to allow three readings before voting on anything!

The ordinance is only for temporary resolutions, nothing else, and definitely not for permanent ordinances. I'm not necessarily saying that it is a great idea, I honestly haven put much thought or research into it, but to word it the way it was on facebook I think is kind of hypocritical of the LO.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Ok, so I haven't read this thread yet, but just saw the post for it on facebook and I just have to say that who ever wrote it is partaking in sensationalism that the observer claims to be against.

A potential nightmare as a City Council that does not even recognize Sunshine Week, that does not use all of the ways at their disposal to get information out, now decides it no longer has to allow three readings before voting on anything!

The ordinance is only for temporary resolutions, nothing else, and definitely not for permanent ordinances. I'm not necessarily saying that it is a great idea, I honestly haven put much thought or research into it, but to word it the way it was on facebook I think is kind of hypocritical of the LO.

Christopher

The Lakewood Observer unlike others, is about putting your name on it and owning the thought. That would be the major thought behind everything the Observer does.

That is my thought, and I put my name on it and own it.

To me all of this is a very slippery slope. While I find the need on higher levels with the
massive threat against America in our never ending war on terrorism. I rarely see it as
so necessary that we need to pass this on a local level.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765809753/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=031320747X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0FEC2FTW36DAHQM795VN

They have very little problem, asking for permission to use one reading now. It just allows
the effort to be put on the record, record it, and who and why it was needed. It is not a
bad thing. Is it?

Another thing the Observer was constructed for was for the very real discussion by very
real people, who care to weigh in on a topic. Like this thread.

Kevin,

As always thank you for stepping up.

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Chris

But your point is well taken, as "Lakewood Observer" becomes my name on the site, I
have changed it to be less dramatic.

Thank you for calling that to my attention.

.

[Christopher Bindel]

Betsy, let me independently clarify a few things. First, City Council actually requires 3, not 2, readings on every ordinance or resolution.

Second I am going to attempt to explain why Councilman Nowlin may think it will it will save time and resources. If you have ever seen a full council agenda printed up they averagely take somewhere between 70-120 pages (they may double side them I’m not sure) each ordinance or resolution along with all the intro communications and reports have to be printed in these documents every time they are on an agenda. So if an item is on the agenda three times and it takes up three pages that is a total of 9 pages. However if that resolution can be read just once and past the Council not only saves the 6 pages from the resolution not being re printed but probably 2 additional committee report pages. This may not seem like a lot but multiply it by several resolutions a month over the year times 7 council members, the clerk and members of the administration and it really adds up.

Also you have the staff time to print them and put them together. As far as time goes in Council Meetings, trust me some votes can take quite a while. I have seen them do upwards of 6 votes on one item (voting to edit an item, voting to vote on the substitute item as apposed to the original, voting to suspend the rules and then an actual vote, etc.), So when you add in them having to suspend the rules for routine stuff it can add a bit of time over several items.

Jim,

I understand your idea of it being a slippery slope, and I would caution that as well, but the statement on facebook just flat out in accurate and miss leading. I also would tell you to re-read Kevin’s puss above. Last time I checked I do not think we need to worry about council taking three readings to congratulate a retiree.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Chris

I appreciate the call out, and made the correction.

But I really see why we use 3 readings for retiree as an example. And if someone is getting
a presentation or proclamation and it takes three readings why shortcut it.

I love the fact that Councilman Nowlin, is appointed and now takes this as one of his first
acts on council, however, I would rather see something a little more meaningful and less
intruding on years of tradition.

My view, possible not yours.

.

[Charlie Page]

The proposed ordinance applies only to resolutions not ordinances. Further, it does not apply to resolutions ‘of a permanent character’. Resolutions of a permanent character would still require three separate readings.

I would think that congratulatory resolutions are ‘of a permanent character’ since the congratulations don’t expire or wouldn’t be rescinded, so maybe the language in the proposed ordinance needs to be tweaked to reflect this type of scenario.

Where I think the proposed ordinance would help is in the area of appointments to committees. I’ve been on the Audit Committee since its inception (my fourth year so far) and in 2010 I was Chairperson. People are appointed or re-appointed by Council through resolutions (and by the Mayor). Since each term is two years, I would consider these resolutions to not be of a permanent character. Each year, we struggle with re-appointments and when it comes time for our January meeting, we are down 1 or 2 members because of the 3 reading rule. I can’t speak for other committees but I would like to see the committee appointment process streamlined. Changing the 3 reading rule might do that.

[Jim O'Bryan]

The proposed ordinance applies only to resolutions not ordinances. Further, it does not apply to resolutions ‘of a permanent character’. Resolutions of a permanent character would still require three separate readings.

I would think that congratulatory resolutions are ‘of a permanent character’ since the congratulations don’t expire or wouldn’t be rescinded, so maybe the language in the proposed ordinance needs to be tweaked to reflect this type of scenario.

Where I think the proposed ordinance would help is in the area of appointments to committees. I’ve been on the Audit Committee since its inception (my fourth year so far) and in 2010 I was Chairperson. People are appointed or re-appointed by Council through resolutions (and by the Mayor). Since each term is two years, I would consider these resolutions to not be of a permanent character. Each year, we struggle with re-appointments and when it comes time for our January meeting, we are down 1 or 2 members because of the 3 reading rule. I can’t speak for other committees but I would like to see the committee appointment process streamlined. Changing the 3 reading rule might do that.

Charlie

While we keep going back to the congratulatory resolutions, and it all seems so silly. What
about the temporary approval of dogs on leashes? Would that have fallen under it? If so
when does a temporary item become permanent? If the issues is never revisited does it
remain temporary forever?

While it seems to streamline the process, I find it more than slightly amusing that a person
recently appointed would find the process so burdensome, while decades of council
members felt that it was not. Fresh out of the box thinking, maybe I like Councilman
Nowlin from the small interaction I have had with him, but needed?

I personally like the fact, that when a person wants to suspend the 3-reading rule, it is
noted in the records and sometimes why.

FWIW


.

[Charlie Page]

While we keep going back to the congratulatory resolutions, and it all seems so silly. What
about the temporary approval of dogs on leashes? Would that have fallen under it? If so when does a temporary item become permanent? If the issues is never revisited does it remain temporary forever?

While it seems to streamline the process, I find it more than slightly amusing that a person recently appointed would find the process so burdensome, while decades of council members felt that it was not. Fresh out of the box thinking, maybe I like Councilman Nowlin from the small interaction I have had with him, but needed?

I personally like the fact, that when a person wants to suspend the 3-reading rule, it is noted in the records and sometimes why.

The pilot program to allow leashed dog walking was established by ordinance which, I believe, expired or was set to expire.

When you get new people you get new thinking. It’s quite possible the decades of Council Members just put up with it as a necessary evil. Fresh out of the box thinking or just common sense?

In 2009 Council passed 62 resolutions. I have no idea how many were passed on the first reading by suspending the rule but 62 times 3 readings equals 186 readings. That’s a lot of time that could have been spent doing other more productive things. I’d rather have my Councilperson spending that time answering constituent inquiries or giving serious thought to other items of greater importance or spending a few extra minutes with their families.

Ryan Nowlin and Shawn Juris were appointed to Council by resolution. For both resolutions, Council Members voted to suspend the 3 reading rule. I would consider these resolutions to be ‘not of a permanent character’ since each has to stand for election. I’m not in favor of including resolutions to appoint people to Council as part of the proposed ordinance. However, in consideration of having a full roster on Council so as not to limit, delay or constrain our local government, the 3 reading rule should be able to be suspended via vote.

I’m in favor of limiting the readings to 1 for the resolutions for such purposes as: committee appointment, recognition, commendation, acceptance of funds, grant applications, or other resolution characteristics that do not significantly alter or materially effect the membership of Council or City operations.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Charlie

Look upon Council as a courtroom, and you would have fair disclosure.

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.

Perhaps they could better define temporary with set deadlines for review.

FWIW


.

[stephen davis]

Betsy, this proposal merely brings our ordinances in line with our municipal "constitution" -- the charter.

The charter requires three readings for "resolution[s] of a permanent character or ordinance[s]," unless Council suspends the rules requiring three readings in order to adopt items on fewer than three readings. Thus, resolutions of an impermanent character wouldn't need more than one reading under the charter.

Section 121.10 of the Codified Ordinances nearly restates this charter provision, but requires three readings for ordinances and all resolutions, regardless of whether those resolutions are considered permanent. Council may still vote to suspend the rules, however. The practical effect is that Council under this ordinance has voted to suspend the rules requiring three readings on even impermanent resolutions -- items congratulating city retirees, for instance, or voicing Council's support for legislation elsewhere -- requiring a level of formality that is neither contemplated in the charter nor warranted.

Councilman Nowlin's proposal, if adopted, would resolve this discrepancy, bringing Section 121.10 in line with the citizens' intent as announced in the charter. I hope that explanation helps.

I’m satisfied with Kevin Butler’s informed position on this one. Sounds reasonable to me.

I have pulled a few quotes from the Charter. They describe a framework for how Council may conduct business relative to Betsy and Jim’s concerns. The bolds are mine.

ARTICLE III. THE COUNCIL

SECTION 5. ORGANIZATION AND OPEN MEETINGS.
The Council shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its members. A majority of all the acting members elected shall be a quorum to do business but a less number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as may be prescribed by ordinance. The affirmative vote of a majority of the acting members of Council shall be necessary to adopt any ordinance or resolution and on the passage thereof a vote shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered upon the journal. The Council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and shall keep a journal of its proceedings. All meetings of the Council or committees thereof shall be open to the public, except that Executive Sessions may be held in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code. Any citizen shall have access to the minutes and records thereof at all reasonable times.

ARTICLE III. THE COUNCIL

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.

Interestingly, as I was looking through these sections, I found a couple of really odd things. Throughout the Charter there are seemingly endless mentions of “Council” and “Members of Council”. There are also, at least two, very specific references to “members elected to Council” and “all members elected thereto” that got my attention. One is in the section previously quoted.

…by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all of the members elected to Council…

Another is in the Appropriation of Property section. Again, my bolds.

ARTICLE XVII. APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY

SECTION 3. NOTICE.
Immediately upon the adoption of such resolution, for which but one reading shall be necessary, the Clerk of Council shall cause written notice thereof to be given to the owner, person in possession thereof or having an interest of record in every piece of land sought to be appropriated, or to his or her authorized agent; and such notice shall be served by a person designated for the purpose and return made in the manner provided by law for the service and return of summons in civil actions. If such owner, person or agent cannot be found, notice shall be given by publication once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and Council may thereupon pass an ordinance by the vote of two-thirds of all members elected thereto, directing such appropriation to proceed.

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.

How would a quorum be defined relative to this language? 2/3 majority of which members of Council? Perhaps a corrective Charter amendment would be in order.

Kevin?

Now we can argue the intent AND the literal language of our Charter in our pursuit of good government, vis a vis the Nowlin proposal.


Steve

.

[Meg Ostrowski]

Unless City Council conducts its business in a dramatically different fashion than the School Board...

Betsy,

Having shared your experience with the school board, I can understand your concern upon hearing of this proposed change, but you hit the nail on the head with your lead in above. After watching Lakewood City Council meetings on Cox 74 and attending BOE meetings, my observation is that each group conducts its business in dramatically different fashions. I attribute this to the fact that three of the school board members are serving their fourth, fifth or seventh, four-year, term! These three often seem to be "operating in a vacuum" and show little obligation when addressing issues raised by their constituents. I appreciate their service, value their experience and know that all of them have made positive contributions to our schools but I think a change might do some good.

Meg