Diving into the Issues: the Hudson Charter
On 7/28/2020 during Hudson’s regularly scheduled Council workshop, Mr. Kagler who served as the Chairman of the Charter Review Commission, and Mr. Hunt, Special Counsel, provided an overview of the Commission’s recommendations to appear on the November ballot for citizens to vote on.
But, before I go any farther, what is our charter? Basically, it is Hudson’s guiding document, our “Constitution” if you will.
Our Charter Review Commission consisted of the following members: Robert S. Kagler, Chair; Kerri Keller, Secretary; Andrew Duff; Melissa Jones; Sherif Mansour; Lisa Radigan; David Schweighoefer; Brett Shriver; Allen Wass.
They have recommended that the various amendments be grouped into at least four separate ballot issues, which I will outline briefly with some thoughts. For quick reference, I have attached the documents that were discussed for easy access at the end of this blog.
1. Proposed amendment to be in Ballot Issue #1:
This is a proposed change to Section 3.05, Powers [of Council]. This amendment changes the last paragraph of this section to encourage Council to “seek to achieve broad geographical representation – e.g., wards and /or zoning districts -- on all Council-appointed boards, commissions, and committees.”
My take: this is a positive change. I believe that government works best when it accurately reflects those it represents.
The criticism I have heard is that it could, in some instances, force Council to choose a less qualified candidate simply to check a box. Sometimes the applicant pool for boards and commissions is small, and this could prove to be an issue when there are not a lot of applicants to consider. This is not like college admissions where there are thousands of qualified, wonderful applicants to be considered. If it comes down to two applicants and the less-qualified applicant happens to live in the ward that needs representation, I do not agree with appointing that applicant simply to achieve representation. However, this language was described by Mr. Kagler as “aspirational language,” meaning it is not binding but more of a guidepost to ensure there is broad representation.
2. Proposed amendment to be in Ballot Issue #2:
This is a proposed change to Section 9.01, Planning Commission – Composition and Terms. This change reads, “At the time of the appointment or re-appointment of any member of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission shall have no less than one (1) member from each ward in the Municipality.”
My notes on this are largely the same as above. I do think representation on Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning & Building Appeals (BZBA) is more important than on other boards and commissions, so I am not against this change. But I worry that if Hudson does not have anyone apply for an opening from a ward that currently has no representation, business as usual will not continue on that board or commission because Council could be rendered unable to fill the seat simply because of this requirement. Although this is not likely, as both the Planning Commission and the BZBA normally have plenty of applicants, it is a possibility.
3. Proposed amendment to be in Ballot Issue #3:
This is a proposed change to Section 9.02, again addressing the Planning Commission but this time its powers and duties. This change reads, “No zoning, building or other regulation controlling the use or development of land shall permit maximum net density in any zoning district for any dwelling type to increase without changing the text of the regulation or the zoning map; and any such change of the text or map shall require six (6) affirmative votes of Council for its passage.”
Overall, I agree with this change and have no additional thoughts on this matter.
4. Proposed amendment to be in Ballot Issue #4:
This ballot issue will encompass revisions to the following sections: 3.02, 3.05, 3.08, 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3.13, 4.03, 5.01, 5.02, 5.03, 5.04 (former 5.03), 5.05 (former 5.04), 5.06 (former 5.05 but only renumbered), 6.04, 7.01, 7.04, 8.03, 8.04, 8.06, 8.07, 9.01, 9.04, 9.05, 9.06, 10.01, 11.01, 12.01, 12.02, 12.03 and 13.02
This encompasses many changes, both large and small. Many of the changes are as simple as changing the wording to be more consistent when describing the composition and terms of the various city boards and commissions. However, there are some significant changes to sections 5.02 and 5.03 that outline the process for suspension and removal of the City Manager to allow more time for due process to occur. These are important changes that I agree with, because I believe that, otherwise, this could be abused for political gain. But more on that later. Another section that I found interesting was SECTION 3.09 - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT. In recent times, our city staff and Council have been criticized for using the emergency measure to pass things in a timely manner. People have argued that the “emergency” measure was abused and that every item should go through the full three readings. I generally agree with the sentiment that all legislation should go through three full readings, and believe the proposed changes will help continue to move council in this direction by requiring a larger majority to pass for an emergency measure to take effect.
Overall, the recommended changes to our charter, while lengthy (about 25 pages), are worth reading so that you are able to cast an educated vote. I won’t detail the exact minutiae of all of the proposed changes, but instead encourage you all to read them yourselves. I personally plan to vote “YES” to adopt all four amendments to our charter this November.
I would like to address another issue that, as of late, has been raised frequently: the idea of changing from a City Manager form of government to a Strong Mayor form of government.
I am against this change ever happening in Hudson.
We currently have a City Manager form of government and I believe this is best for Hudson because it prevents partisan politics from influencing day-to-day decisions, which are not partisan (like downtown development, roads, taxes, and other services that protect and enrich the lives of our families).
In this form of government, all power resides within our elected Council members, who then appoint a City Manager, which is inherently a nonpartisan role within the city. The City Manager is in charge of the day-to-day management of the city at the direction of Council, is present at Council meetings and helps facilitate Council workshops. The City Manager answers to Council and therefore to the voters, because the City Manager serves at the pleasure of Council, who can remove him/her at any time if they are unhappy with his/her performance.
So, then what’s the deal with this other form of government? The Strong Mayor form of government?
In a Strong Mayor form of government, the Mayor acts in the primary role of running the city’s day-to-day needs and the city’s budget, and has more of a role in deciding and voting on the city’s legislation. It results in turnover every time a new Mayor is elected, which results in an incredible loss of institutional knowledge. People often are no longer hired based on qualifications but along party lines or as a favor to the new Mayor because they supported him/her during the election. In my opinion, the Strong Mayor form of government invites cronyism and partisanship into your local government. I am against this.
Currently, Section 3.05 - POWERS (of Council) reads, “All the legislative powers of the Municipality and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the Council.”
Whereas, Section 4.02 - POWERS (of the Mayor) reads, “The Mayor shall preside at the organizational meeting and all subsequent regular and special meetings of the Council at which legislative action may be taken but shall have no vote therein.” “The Mayor shall be the official and ceremonial head of the Municipal government and shall be recognized as such by the Governor for military purposes and by the courts for the purpose of serving civil processes.”
It is clear that in Hudson, the role of the Mayor is mainly a ceremonial role. The Hudson Mayor has no budgetary or administrative authority. I am an avid advocate for it staying this way, and as long as I live in Hudson I will work to ensure it does.
One issue I do wish our Charter Review Commission had addressed was that of making the Hudson Environmental Awareness Committee (EAC) a charter committee. Currently it is not, meaning it could be eliminated by any future Council that does not feel favorably towards issues concerning the environment. I am a firm believer that our local environment is something that impacts ALL of us. The city of Hudson has three watersheds and many wetlands that are home to some of Ohio’s native species – both flora and fauna. These are natural treasures that we should work to continue to protect. Additionally, some Hudson residents have well water. It is important to reduce or prevent man-made contaminants from entering the groundwater. I am disappointed that even after the EAC recommended to the Charter Review Commission that they make the EAC a charter board, they did not.
Thanks for sticking with me. I know this was likely one of my drier posts!
Have questions? Want to tell me your thoughts on our charter or on any of the proposed changes? As always, I would love to have a conversation! Email me directly at nicole@kowalski4hudson.com.
Download the Charter Review documents here:
