Gahanna Charter Review Commission Meeting – May 1, 2026

The Gahanna Charter Review Commission met for a regular meeting in Council Chambers, City Hall, starting at 6:30 p.m. and adjourning at 8:18 p.m. The agenda and minutes dated the meeting April 23, 2026, while the supplied meeting timestamp is May 1, 2026 at 20:00:00 UTC; this summary uses the supplied date. Chair Ethan Barnhardt presided. Five members were present (Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Mularski, Wester) and two were absent (Maxwell, Reynolds). The Commission transitioned from the public engagement phase into deliberations, reviewing 27 public proposals consolidated into 14 draft ballot measures, removing two groups of items from consideration, and identifying topics needing additional education before scoring.

Consent Calendar

• Unanimously approved the April 9, 2026 Charter Review Commission minutes (motion by Hill, second by Belisle; 5-0, with Maxwell and Reynolds absent).

Public Comments & Testimony

• None. No visitor speaker slips were submitted.

Discussion Items

• Chair Barnhardt explained that 27 proposals received during the engagement phase had been consolidated into 14 draft ballot measures by charter article and subject matter. He noted that Ohio law requires each ballot issue to address a single subject and use plain language.
• Barnhardt recommended replacing the earlier “structural vs. housekeeping” classification with a single scoring matrix applied to all draft ballot measures that pass initial thresholds. After discussion, the vote on this process change was postponed to the next meeting so absent members could participate (motion by Belisle, second by Wester; carried 5-0).
• The Commission removed CRC 013-016 (real estate transactions and development agreements) from consideration. Vice Chair Wester argued these were existing administrative practices and not appropriate for the Charter; several commissioners agreed. Motion by Wester, second by Hill; carried 5-0.
• The Commission removed CRC 019, a proposal to define excused absences for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Belisle argued the definition was outside the Commission’s role. Motion by Belisle, second by Wester; carried 5-0.
• For CRC 017-020, the Commission discussed the Charter’s fixed absence thresholds for the Planning Commission. City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed that Section 11.02 does not distinguish excused from unexcused absences and recommended considering revised Charter language, potentially delegating attendance rulemaking to the Planning Commission. The item was retained for prioritization rather than removed.
• CRC 025 (ward composition) drew significant debate. Wester expressed concern that the change was major, relied on mismatched data (Census population estimates versus more frequently updated voter registration data), and that residents already had access to multiple representatives. Mularski explained that wards are intended to balance voters, not residents. Belisle expressed support for population-based representation, citing inclusivity and dignity for all residents, and referenced Ohio Revised Code language. Hill saw the proposal as fitting a guiding document. Barnhardt said he lacked information on how ward boundaries would change. The Commission reached consensus to hold the item for additional education, including possible contact with the Board of Elections.
• On the proposed change from a mayor-council form of government to a city manager form, Belisle said she did not need more education but invited public input and would not advance it without more information. Mularski noted there had not been significant public support. Wester argued the Commission should first define what problem the change would solve. Hill called it a major undertaking that had not been clearly presented as a Charter amendment. Barnhardt interpreted Councilmember Padova’s comments as a request for education rather than an endorsement, noted the July 1 deadline for recommendations, and suggested City Council could convene a separate study group as it did in 2015. The item was kept tabled for the next meeting.
• On CRC 010 (special meeting requests under Section 4.11), City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the Charter currently gives Council authority to set rules and, in the absence of rules, requires the Clerk to call a special meeting upon written request from the Mayor, the President of Council, or any three Council members. She said the Commission could remove the default language and defer entirely to Council rules, or retain the list and add the City Attorney. Wester expressed concern about overly specific Charter language. Barnhardt said he had enough information to retain the item for scoring.
• Regarding Section 4.10 and meeting locations, City Attorney Tamilarasan advised that only regular and special meetings must be held in Council Chambers; committee meetings can be held elsewhere if properly noticed and accessible. She noted that public comment is currently limited to regular and special meetings under Council rules, and that committees do not take substantive legislative action. Belisle expressed concern that expanding public comment to committee meetings could create unintended consequences. Staff was asked to follow up.
• On CRC 009 (flexibility in the organizational meeting date), City Attorney Tamilarasan clarified that officials are not required to be sworn in at the organizational meeting and can take a private oath. The sitting City Attorney remains in office until a successor is sworn in, but the Mayor’s term provides that the next Mayor assumes office on January 2 and holds office until a successor is elected and qualified. Commissioners expressed concern about a potential leadership gap if a new Mayor had not yet been sworn in during a delayed organizational meeting. The item remained under consideration.
• On CRC 005 (modernizing public notice), Hill observed the Charter does not prohibit digital notice and the city already posts notices online. City Attorney Tamilarasan explained the Charter only requires posting in a conspicuous place in a municipal building. Wester cautioned that too many specific requirements could reduce public understanding and engagement. Barnhardt warned against prescriptive language that could limit future communication methods. No action was taken.
• On CRC 024 (non-discrimination clause), Wester requested administration input on best practices and alignment with existing equal employment opportunity policies. City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the city can expand protections beyond federal and state law, that existing city codes already include broader protected categories, and that a rejected ballot measure would not invalidate existing policies. She said there was no substantive legal risk in expanding the Charter language, and that consistency across city documents would be best practice. Belisle noted the electorate could decide the question without harming existing protections. Mularski asked whether rejection would conflict with EEO policies; commissioners and the City Attorney concurred it would not.
• Belisle requested additional education on residency requirements for the City Attorney, noting the specialized qualifications and potentially smaller candidate pool. She offered to research practices in other municipalities. Wester was open to further discussion once all members were present.
• On future proposals submitted after prioritization, the Commission agreed that late proposals should be considered deliberately, likely requiring a group vote, and that the Commission should communicate that the collection phase had largely ended while still allowing public comment.

Key Outcomes

• Approved April 9, 2026 minutes unanimously (5-0).
• Postponed the process-architecture/matrix vote until the next meeting (5-0).
• Removed CRC 013-016 from Charter Review consideration (5-0).
• Removed CRC 019 from Charter Review consideration (5-0).
• Directed that CRC 025 and the form-of-government proposal be held for additional education or future discussion.
• Staff and commissioners were asked to schedule possible special meetings, including April 30 or May 14, and to explore non-Thursday dates. Clerk VanMeter said staff would check calendars and availability.
• City Attorney Tamilarasan announced she would be absent May 7, with Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth attending in her place, and that she would be available for April 30 and May 14 meetings. She also offered to prepare a redlined version of Charter Section 10 for the Commission’s next meeting.
• Future proposals introduced after the collection phase will require intentional consideration, likely by a Commission vote.