City of Green Charter Review Commission Meeting – March 9, 2026

The City of Green Charter Review Commission met on Monday, March 9, 2026, in Council Chambers at the Central Administration Building (1755 Town Park Blvd.). The agenda listed a 5:30 PM start; the transcript records the call to order at 5:34 PM. Members present: Robert Duffrin (Chair), Bob Knapp, Betty Konen, and Deborah Koral. Kristin Yanko was absent. No members of the public offered comments. The Commission approved the previous meeting's minutes and devoted the meeting to a section-by-section review of Article VI (City Departments), with the most extensive discussion focused on Section 6.4, the elected Director of Law.

Call to Order, Roll Call & Procedure Review

• Roll call: Duffrin, Knapp, Konen, and Koral present; Yanko absent.
• Chair Duffrin proposed a new review procedure: rather than reading each article aloud, the Commission will read only sections where members have comments or questions. The goal is to complete Article VI at the March 9 meeting, Articles VII and VIII on April 6, Articles IX and X on April 20, and Articles XI, XII, and XIII on May 4, leaving time at the end for a full review. This pacing was suggested by Betty Konen.

Consent Calendar

• TMP-5281: Motion to approve the February 23, 2026 Charter Review Commission minutes. Seconded; roll call: Koral yes, Duffrin yes, Knapp yes, Konen yes. Motion carried unanimously (Yanko absent).

Correspondence

• No correspondence was received.

Discussion Items: Article VI – City Departments

Section 6.1 – Establishment of Departments

• Deborah Koral observed that the city website's "Government > Departments" listing includes more departments than the charter (e.g., engineering, HR, communications, parks/recreation). Staff member Nicole confirmed engineering and HR were created as departments by council action, while communications is budgeted separately but falls under the mayor's department. Parks is a division of Service and zoning is a division of Planning, though the website does not show that hierarchy. Members agreed the charter does not need to change, but recommended the website be corrected to avoid confusion.

Section 6.2 – Directors

• Members noted that Section 6.2's provisions on appointment and dismissal (two-thirds council vote for removal of appointed directors) do not fit an elected Director of Law, reinforcing the later discussion about moving Section 6.4 out of Article VI.

Section 6.3 – Job Descriptions

• Bob Knapp reviewed the director job descriptions and suggested the Commission could make recommendations—not charter changes—for defining whether positions are remote, on-site, or hybrid as a best practice.
• Knapp flagged Section 6.3b for gender-neutral language ("his" → "their").
• Betty Konen noted the Director of Finance's actual duties exceed those listed in the charter, but said supplementing those duties is properly city council's role.

Section 6.4 – Director of Law (extensive discussion)

• Koral recommended removing Section 6.4 from Article VI because it addresses an elected position, and proposed placing it in its own section after City Council, alongside the other elected officials (mayor, council, law director). The 2019 Charter Review Commission considered the same question and opted to leave it in place, but members indicated they may recommend the move this time; it would require voter approval and renumbering under Section 12.10 (charter corrections).
• The section's qualifications were read: the director must be an Ohio-licensed attorney; have a minimum of five years of employment or public practice experience in municipal and/or other governmental law; and, for those first elected or appointed after January 1, 2020, be a qualified elector and resident of the city for at least two continuous years immediately prior to election or appointment and during the term. Members questioned whether the two-year residency requirement is consistent with council and mayoral requirements, and whether qualifications are verified by any independent process. Knapp suggested an independent body (e.g., Akron Bar Association) or a certification subject to state bar discipline to keep politics out of qualification checks.
• Members discussed the requirement that the Director of Law certify hours to the Director of Finance on a bi-weekly or other periodic basis. Konen called the arrangement "a total mess," noting it conflicts with salaried positions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Council Resolution 2019-R01 (amended January 15, 2019) set a 20-hour-per-week commitment—the only director position with such a requirement. Members observed the certification appears not to be enforced and suggested deleting the hour-certification and compensation paragraphs to match the simpler "compensation determined by council" language used for other directors.
• The law director job description dates to 2016, before the position became elected; members said it is outdated and needs council attention. Discussion clarified that council can supplement the charter with additional duties as long as they do not conflict, since the charter functions as the city's constitution.
• Members flagged the term "solicitors" in Section 6.4 as inconsistent, since the city has a law director, not a solicitor.
• The paragraph stating "nothing in this charter shall preclude the city from contracting for additional legal services" was discussed at length. Nicole explained the contracting process: the law director prepares/reviews all contracts and recommends outside counsel; legislation is brought to council; and council oversight applies to professional services above $10,000 (raised from $5,000). Members debated whether to strike the paragraph as redundant or leave it in to avoid voter misconstruction at the ballot box; no decision was reached.
• Members noted the current law director is running for another elected position, which could create a vacancy this year. The position was elected under different rules, and qualifications have not been independently verified.
• Budget discussion: the law director budget grew from about $100,000 in 2015 to roughly $175,000 in the current year, with one year exceeding $200,000 including supplemental appropriations. The salary started at about $50,000–$55,000 with a 103% annual escalator; by 2023 it was about $60,000. Members expressed concern about the lack of accountability for part-time hours relative to outside legal fees.
• Several members suggested the entire section needs rewriting and could be placed on the ballot as a package rather than parsed line by line. The mayor noted that the mayor holds ultimate hiring authority for city positions, with directors interviewing and recommending; the law director advises but has no special hiring power. Members also noted that if the city obtained a conflicting outside legal opinion and acted on it, the city could face litigation risk.

Section 6.5 – Director of Planning

• The website and job description refer to "Planning and Development," while the charter says "Planning." Economic development falls under the planning umbrella, and zoning is a division of planning. Members agreed the charter language should stay, with website and job description refreshes recommended.
• Historical context was provided: the planning director was Mayor Torak's first hire and predated engineering, which was originally under planning; the charter reflects the city's 1990s progression. One member noted a potential conflict in the planner both championing development projects and enforcing codes—a reason some cities create a separate economic development director—but that would be a council decision, not a charter change.

Section 6.6 – Director of Public Safety (Mayor)

• Betty Konen proposed adding cybersecurity (data breaches, threats) to the Director of Public Safety's powers and duties. Others noted IT and cybersecurity are currently overseen by the Finance Director through vendor Sikich, with annual penetration testing. The mayor said IT was moved from the Service Director to Finance during his tenure; the city experienced a breach about 10–12 years ago and has since emphasized cybersecurity, using different vendors for pen testing. He noted the state is increasingly emphasizing cybersecurity (Akron was severely impacted a couple of years ago) and that the city's greatest risk is taxpayer data, which receives heightened protection. Council recently passed legislation for a cybersecurity plan being developed by the finance director and IT. Members generally agreed cybersecurity does not need to be added to the charter; the existing "oversee all matters relating to public safety" language can serve as a catch-all, and job descriptions should be updated. An external protocol and simulation exercise every 18–24 months was noted as typical practice.

Section 6.7 – Director of Public Service

• No comments or questions were raised.

Old Business

• Bob Knapp recommended the chair maintain a working document of all recommendations and action items so the Commission can later review and drop lower-priority items to focus on major changes.

Key Outcomes

• Approved the February 23, 2026 minutes unanimously (Duffrin, Knapp, Konen, Koral; Yanko absent).
• Agreed to a paced review schedule: Article VI by March 9; Articles VII–VIII by April 6; IX–X by April 20; XI–XIII by May 4, with remaining time for final review.
• Action item: consider moving Article 6.4 (Director of Law) out of Article VI into its own section after City Council; would require a ballot issue and renumbering per Section 12.10.
• Action item: consider deleting the bi-weekly hour-certification and compensation paragraphs in Section 6.4, replacing them with "compensation determined by council" language; and consider whether to strike the paragraph on contracting for additional legal services. No final vote was taken; these matters will be revisited.
• Flagged for website and job description corrections: department listings, the "Planning and Development" title, updated finance/law director job descriptions, and gender-neutral language ("his" → "their").
• No final recommendations were adopted; Article VI discussion will continue at a future meeting.

Note: The agenda listed the meeting start time as 5:30 PM, while the transcript records the call to order at 5:34 PM. Meeting minutes were not available in the source materials; this summary relies on the agenda and transcript.