Charter Review Commission Meeting – February 23, 2026

The Charter Review Commission met on Monday, February 23, 2026 at 5:00 PM in Council Chambers. The commission reviewed Article V (Nominations and Elections), continued discussion on several unfinished business items from previous meetings, and assigned drafting tasks to members. No public comments were heard.

Approval of Minutes

• TMP-5251: The minutes from the February 9, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously by voice vote (all five members present voted yes).

Correspondence

• The law director provided two emails: one with proposed language regarding publication of ordinances (to be considered later) and one concerning the composition of the Charter Review Commission. Members noted the law director’s suggestion to reduce physical posting locations from five to one (Central Administration Building) and to rely on the website, consistent with practices in other cities (e.g., Stow).

Review of Article V – Nominations and Elections (Sections 5.1–5.4)

The commission read through each section without proposing changes. Members noted a stray comma in the third paragraph of Section 5.4 and briefly discussed the procedure for filling a candidate vacancy if a nominating committee fails to act. It was observed that the charter does not specify what happens if no nominee is selected by the committee, potentially leaving the candidate slot void. No formal action was taken; the discussion was informational.

Unfinished Business (Old Business)

• Form of Government (Item One): Adding “Strong” before Mayor/Council – deferred to future discussion.
• Mayor Term Limits (Item Two): Options reviewed but not resolved.
• Qualifications (Item Three): Definition of “public office” – members expressed concern that the broad state ethics definition could inadvertently disqualify individuals (e.g., teachers, school foundation trustees). A member agreed to bring a state Attorney General list of prohibited conflicts to the next meeting.
• Powers of the Mayor – Judicial (Item Four-A): The law director’s memorandum noted that judicial powers historically referred to mayor’s court, which Green no longer operates; other cities retain a magistrate. No change proposed.
• Judicial Powers – Competitive Bidding (Item Four-C): Discussion deferred; the city engineer will be invited to comment at a future meeting on potential removal of competitive bidding language. Members referenced court cases from outside the appellate district.
• Appointment/Removal of Law Director (Item Five): Did not reach a conclusion.
• Vacancy in Office of Mayor (Item Six): A significant debate centered on defining “temporarily absent.” Members rejected a purely geographic definition, arguing that the mayor may perform duties remotely but should have a time limit. A six-week absence was proposed as a threshold (matching council’s three‑meeting absence rule), after which the council president would temporarily assume duties. The discussion also touched on hybrid work policies; human resources clarified that no city positions are currently classified as hybrid, though some work from home by policy.
• Council Vacancies and Notifications (Items Seven–Nine): Referred for drafting; the city’s law director will be asked to review proposed language for meeting notifications via email with read receipt.
• Committee Deliberation and Publication of Ordinances (Items Ten–Eleven): The proposed revisions from the law director were noted; no final decision.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken on any substantive charter changes; discussion only.
• Homework Assignments: Members volunteered to draft proposed language for several items (definition of absence, competitive bidding, publication method, etc.) and to bring draft proposals to the next meeting. The law director will be provided with these drafts for review.
• Next Meeting: The commission will begin reviewing Article VI (Administration) and continue with unfinished business. The meeting time may be extended beyond one hour as needed.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote after approximately one hour.