Shall Article II, Section 2.03(2) Powers and Duties of the Charter of the County of Cuyahoga be amended to extend the term during which Council may act on Executive appointments, and add an interim appointment provision?
League Explanation: Charter language currently provides the County Council with a 30-day window to confirm or reject Executive appointments. Certain appointments also require confirmation hearings and three readings at consecutive Council sessions, while the Council meets only twice each month. The amendment extends that 30-day deadline to 60 days.
PRO: The 30-day deadline has proven difficult and sometimes impossible to meet, if hearings were involved or if the appointee was out of town or forced to miss a session for unavoidable reasons. Some confirmations require more extensive vetting or discussion than others.
CON: Council needs to continue doing its business quickly and efficiently.
CHANGES TO THE “HUMAN RESOURCE COMMISSION”
Issue 3: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage
Shall Article II, Section 2.03(12) Powers and Duties, and Article IX of the Charter of the County of Cuyahoga be amended to rename the "Human Resource Commission" the "Personnel Review Commission," to provide that the County Council shall have the authority to appoint and remove members of the commission, to clarify the commission's administrative powers and duties, and to formally establish an office of the Director of Human Resources?
League Explanation: Charter language currently names its independent, quasi-judicial civil service commission “Human Resource Commission,” while at the same time there is an Executive Branch department called the “Human Resource Department.” To clarify the distinction, this amendment would rename the first of these, “Personnel Review Commission.” The Charter also calls for the County Executive to nominate the members of that 3-person commission, even though the commission’s chief task would be to review personnel issues or irregularities involving the Executive Branch’s own employees. The amendment would shift the appointment role to the Legislative Branch or County Council, to remove that possible conflict of interest. The amendment would also clarify some current ambiguity regarding which employees and rules it is the Commission’s jurisdiction to cover and adjudicate.
PRO: The new name and parameters clear up confusion and uncertainly in the minds of employees, the public, and the commissioners themselves. Legislative rather than Executive appointment of commissioners is a traditional Checks and Balances issue.
CON: The current name is no problem, and Executive appointments were already well balanced by Council hearings and confirmation of those appointments. The amendment is not necessary.
ACTIONS OF COUNCIL NOT REQUIRING EXECUTIVE APPROVAL
Issue 4 PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage
Shall Article III, Section 3.10(5) Organization, Rules and Procedures of the Charter of the County of Cuyahoga be amended to specify actions of Council that do not require Executive approval to be binding?
League Explanation: Charter language currently requires the County Executive to sign off on all actions of the County Council. The amendment would list 10 Council actions with no such requirement, such as the setting of Council’s own rules and procedures, possible rejection of an Executive appointment, or any possible Council investigation into Executive branch operations.
PRO: This is only logical, but it needs to be stated in the Charter.
CON: So much procedural detail should not be part of a Charter.
BOARD OF REVISION
Issue 5: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage
Shall Article VI, Section 6.02 Board of Revision of the Charter of the County of Cuyahoga be amended to clarify the role of the Board of Revision?
League Explanation: Charter language is currently unclear as to what is a Board of Revision and what is a Hearing Board. The amendment clarifies the distinction: The Board of Revision is a single three-member board consisting of the County Executive, a Council President appointee of a different political party from that of the Executive, and either the Fiscal Officer or the Treasurer. That board hires and oversees as many Hearing Boards as are needed to handle current numbers of real property owners seeking reductions in their property’s assessed valuation for tax purposes. Each Hearing Board would consist of three persons meeting merit standards but no longer with a bipartisan requirement.
PRO: Not to correct this Charter error would continue a serious ambiguity. Flexibility in the numbers of Hearing Boards allows for considerable savings during times of lighter caseloads. Bipartisanship of the Board of Revision itself removes the need for it on the Hearing Boards.
CON: The bipartisan requirement for Hearing Boards is important and should be retained. Charter ambiguity can remain for one more year, until the requirement is reinserted and the amendment is resubmitted to voters.
Courtesy of the Lakewood Observer.