CITY CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 11, 2009

The Port Huron City Charter Commission met on August 11th at 7 p.m. in the Municipal Office Center, Room 408. All members were in attendance.

The minutes of July 28th were presented. Commissioner Parcell felt a lot of info was covered in the last meeting and complimented City Clerk, Sue Child, for her excellent minutes. Chairperson Repp said that Ms. Child should be able to take good notes as she was the one who taught her.

The floor was opened for public comment. Ken Harris said he had looked into the Michigan Compiled Laws Act. He was interested in whether there were qualifications for someone who runs for city council. Most of it deals with felonies. He also asked them not to take away the rights of citizens to petition. He said that he had contacted the Michigan Attorney Generals office in regards to the definition of default. He received a response that the inquiry has been sent to the finance devision. He could not find any definition of default in the Michigan Compiled Laws Act.

The Commission continued on, reviewing Chapter 3. Commissioner Tomion was worried about certain dates that were printed on the sheets of the revised charter. No changes had been made to this chapter as of yet. He also recalled laws on ministerial actions by city councils. The Attorney General has concerns about language regarding this.

The next discussion concerned the initiative and petitions. The group agreed that the people should have the powers on ordinances, but the question remains, should it be open to all matters. It was pointed out that a charter amendment was attempted several years ago through an ordinance and this was attempted to propose and alternate development plan for the Thomas Edison Parkway.

The group discussed the difference between administrative and legislative as far as petitions. It was pointed out at the last meeting that people could not have a say through petition on administrative issues. An example of an administrative issue would be if someone was looking to change zoning half a block from a house to put in a store. This would be an administrative issue and could not be controlled through a petition. However, zoning for an entire block would be under an ordinance and thus be legislative. John Lovesay said that the Home Rule Act states it a very specific way and it might be confusing to people because they might think they can deal with something through initiative or referendum but it will not be allowed by law through the Home Rule Act. If the city enacts a zoning or master plan, it's clearly legislative. However, if someone wants a gas station on one corner, it's administrative. That ordinance (the gas station) could not be petitioned by citizens.

Commissioner Tomion said that if council is making an administrative decision that people don't like, they can approach the council and voice their displeasure. If enough of them do this, obviously the council will listen. He also pointed out that allowing people to petition on everything puts the council in a bad position. If the council has to make decisions in a timely manner and someone took out a petition to stop it, it's too much direct government as opposed to representative government.

He feels that people are not educated enough on the issues to make decisions on those controversial issues. Government has to have the ability to make those quick decisions or opportunities are lost. It makes it hard to get things done because it could be reversed by a select few. Government is too complicated for Town Hall settings.

He conceded that people need to be able to protest what government does to it's personal property. One person should not be able to hold up an entire city. Also, if the council is afraid to make decisions, they may just start throwing it to voters every time.

He said that they must look at the political reality of it. In the end this charter has to go before the Attorney General and why include things that might hold them up.

Commissioner Stremers said that he doesn't want everything council does to be questioned but there should be some flexibility as case law changes.

Commissioner Johnson felt that it was fairly simple. Administrative changes can't be petitioned by the citizens anyway, so why not leave the sentence simple or general.

Commissioner Tomion said he is not suggesting they should limit what people can petition for, but he thinks they should not expand it either.

Commissioner Stremers mentioned he found more things on default and he would like to meet with John Livesay and Commissioner Tomion to talk about the definition. He said they should use the legislative wording and let the council figure it out.

At this point Commissioner Stremers left for another appointment.

Commissioner Sample-Winn felt that changing the way petitions can be signed might help the problem of people petitioning over ever little thing. She felt that if they changed it to 5% of all registered voters instead of the 25% of votes for the highest vote getter in the last general election would require people to get about 1,000 signatures. People would have to be pretty motivated about an issue to get 1,000 signatures and it would require that person to find 1,000 people that would agree with the issue.

The next part they talked about was who could circulate the petitions. In some instances you must be a qualified city voter to be able to circulate them. For a recall you can be anyone. It was discussed because it's rather confusing about who can circulate petitions.

Commissioner Johnson feels that limiting it to qualified city voters is too restrictive.

Commissioner Percell felt it's city politics, it should be city voters who do the work.

It was mentioned that they should take out the part about anyone can circulate a petition for someone running for city council. It should be consistent.

It was also mentioned that if it's in the state language then it has to be in the charter. One part needed to be clarified that the city clerk should have 15 working days to verify signatures on petitions.

They discussed the suspension of an ordinance if someone petitions it to be changed. The ordinance must be suspended until they have decided what to do about it. The ordinance will be suspended for 20 days. One example of this would be if someone wanted to suspend the blight ordinance - it must be suspended.

Commissioner Wine wondered if that happened, would the landlords be allowed to let their grass grow waist high because they know they can't be fined. It was confirmed that this could happen.

The thought was stated that because someone might let their grass grow this should take away the right of the voters to petition the city council? It was also brought up that it may not even have to get to the suspension of an ordinance. If someone shows up with 1,000 signatures, the council will do something anyway.

The language now says you can NEVER change an ordinance that is adopted by initiative or referendum and voted in by the people. The commission felt this is not a good policy. They felt that it should be changed to two years (it cannot be changed by council for two years), but if voters wanted to go out and change it sooner than that, they could do so by initiative or referendum procedures.

The Commission moved on to Chapter 4.

Commissioner Sample-Winn started out the discussion stating very strongly that she does not agree that there should only be 1 ward in the city.

Commissioner Parcell felt that the commission should listen to what the people want as far as wards.

Commissioner Johnson wants to leave this to the end and find out what the people really want. She feels there are conversations swirling around in the community and they should let them swirl for awhile.

John Livesay suggested that maybe the commission should announce that the wards issue is set in stone. That should get people up in arms. He felt the last public hearing the commission had was one of the best ever. He thought maybe they should have another one soon.

On another topic, the commission had discussed getting rid of the primary. They felt that the rule should be that potential candidates should have 1 month to pull a petition and file it, and 4 months to campaign before the election.

Commissioner Neal was concerned about the mayor being elected separately. He noted that the mayor could be elected by less than 50% of the vote. He also worried that this might not be a good representation of what people want.

The rest of the group felt it was okay.

Again Commissioner Neal worried that if there are 4 to 6 people running for Mayor then they won't get more than 50% of the vote to win.

Commissioner Tomion said that he had wanted the primary. He felt that if you could end up with a higher quality of candidates, then it's worth the expense. Then he sat back and watched the recent primary and saw they really didn't learn more about the candidates. He now agrees a primary is not necessary.

Commissioner Sample-Winn felt the primary was not necessary. She pointed out that both times she ran and it was really expensive.

Commissioner Tomion said that before primaries were good because it would flush out the views of people. He was very surprised by the city manager groups he talked to because they really liked the direct election of the mayor because that person was the elected representation of the city.

At that time the commission decided to tentatively approve Chapter 4. They decided to put a big star by the section on wards. The majority of the group wanted to hear more from different people on their view of wards.

The group tentatively passed Chapter 4.

They moved on to Chapter 5 which covers Administrative Service. The changes were handed out that had been written by Sue Child and John Livesay. Most of the commissioners felt they could not discuss this chapter as they had not had a chance to read the changes.

The Commissioners sat and did a quick read through on their own. During that time there were comments in the audience wondering why John Livesay and Sue Child were making those changes. Was it an attempt by certain members of the commission to hurry this along so they could be done with it in time for the November election? Most of those in the audience felt the Commissioners should be doing this. Not Ms. Child and Mr. Livesay.

After the Commissioners were done doing their own read through, they did discuss a few things. One was talk about firing the city manager before that persons contract is up. If the city wants to lower the city manager salary, there needs to be some negotiation (i.e. longer term of employment, better severance package, etc.).

Commissioner Neal stated he did not like fixed term contracts because if you fire someone you have to pay severance. He thinks the council has the right to enter into any agreement that best serves the city.

Commissioner Tomion felt that the city manager should serve at the pleasure of the council.

At this time they decided to adjourn. The planned on re-reviewing chapters 5 & 6 before the next meeting. They decided to move the first meeting in September. There will be no meeting on September 8th. The meeting will be moved to September 15th and the September 22nd meeting will be as usual.

Commissioner Johnson would like to schedule the next Public Hearing to discuss wards and other topics.

The Commission adjourned.

    Add a Comment