Agenda Takeover
Last Thursday, as I was I reviewing the draft agenda for tonight, item TMP - 6073 caught my attention. You can read it here.
This ordinance, sponsored by Council President Chris Foster, removes the provision within our Council rules (as dictated by our Codified Ordinances) that allows any Council member to place an item on the meeting agenda by submitting it to the Clerk of Council by 5:00 p.m. two Fridays prior to the meeting. It also essentially gives the President of Council sole veto power on any item that another member wishes to place on the agenda that is not referred from a workshop.
Keep reading to see how this is a gross violation of Hudson’s charter.
This change to our codified ordinances would prevent Council members from submitting items to the agenda to be voted on by our peers UNLESS it is approved by the City Manager AND the Council President.
According to our charter, "All the legislative powers of the Municipality and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the Council." (SECTION 3.05 POWERS). Key words here are “…the Council.” Meaning the body as a whole, we are all equals.
This ordinance that Council President Foster is bringing forward limits the legislative powers of the body as a whole by giving the Council President more power than other members of Council, therefore more power than the Charter currently outlines the Council President possesses.
Additionally, the City Manager should not answer to the Council President individually. That is not how our government was intended to work. The City Manager answers to all of Council, as a whole. The City Manager should have the ability to place items on the agenda without fear of political interference, repercussions, or retaliation. The Council as a body votes on all legislation on the agenda, THAT is when the Council should exercise their legislative powers.
Why is Mr. Foster seeking to limit what we are allowed to vote on?
The Hudson Charter outlines the role of the Council President in section SECTION 3.03 PRESIDENT, and aside from presiding over meetings in which no legislative action may be taken (unless exercising the powers and performing the duties of the Mayor in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4.03 and 4.04), the Council President has NO MORE power than any of their peers. And claiming that new authority can or should be granted to the Council President simply because the Charter does not say that we cannot goes against tradition and precedent.
By eliminating the provision that allows any Council member to submit an item to be placed on the agenda with the Clerk of Council, it limits the authority of each duly elected member.
Want a stormwater improvement in your ward? Now, your council representative would be at the mercy of whoever the Council President is. Do you want an issue pertaining to our land development code to be considered and discussed? Now, your council representative would be at the mercy of whoever the Council President is.
You get the idea.
We were all duly elected to bring ideas and issues to the table to act in the best interest of those we represent. This limits that ability.
Additionally, I believe that the section that reads (paraphrasing this - see attached language) that an item may only be placed on an agenda if three (3) or more Council members refer the item violates section 3.07 of the Charter, which dictates that it is necessary to have the affirmative votes of four (4) members of the Council unless a larger number be required by the provisions of this Charter or by the laws of Ohio. So, why was three (3) chosen? It seems arbitrary. If the argument that items that do not have majority support waste the Council’s time, then should we stick with the actual number the charter outlines as the majority? The obvious answer is no, because four (4) perpetuates the idea that the majority in power at that time controls the agenda. And that is wrong. But choosing 3 is arbitrary and there is no clear reason for that number to be chosen. My suggestion would be to lower that number to two (2), because according to Robert’s Rules of Order, if a motion is made it only needs someone to second it (so, 2 votes) to force a vote on it.
And lastly, but most importantly, how short-sighted of Council President Foster to try to limit the power of his peers in such an obvious and blatant power grab.
Mr. Foster, the voters are watching. Someday, when you are no longer Council President, will you regret eliminating the process for submitting legislation to the agenda and limiting your own voice as a representative of the people of Hudson?
Follow my Facebook and Twitter for frequent updates!
Have questions? Want to share your thoughts with me on this issue or a different one? As always, I would love to have a conversation! Email me directly at nkowalski@hudson.oh.us.
