ALL VIDEOS UPDATE 09:00 AM
Canton is the "only" major Ohio city that is allowing Columbus (i.e. the Ohio General Assembly) to dictate how it city government manages itself.
Canton City Council president Allen Schulman said it best at yesterday's council work session (in the context of a meeting of council as "Committee of the Whole"):
And Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack (now in his third year as a councilman) agrees:
However, it has been a "no-go" for charter government in Canton.
Recently, (June 20, 2014) Canton Law Director (elected) sat down and a review of the history at attempts for Canton to make itself a charter government city, to wit:
In 1913, over 60% of Canton's resident voters rejected the first proposed charter, which suggested that its local government be operated by five non-partisan commissioners.
In 1921, nearly 70% of Canton's voters rejected a charter that proposed a city manager form of government with a seven member council.
In 1962, 71% of Canton's voters rejected a proposed charter that would have had all members of council elected at large, among other changes. The proposed 9 member council would have been quite a change from the existing 15 member council, including 12 from wards, and 3 at large. Many of the proposed changes have come to pass, e.g. more simplified publication in the reading and summarizing of ordinances, a Mayor and Law Director to be elected for four year terms separately, professional qualifications for some members of the Board of Health, and other less significant changes.
In 1984, City Council indefinitely tabled a resolution to submit the issue of forming a charter government to the Canton City voters.
In 1987, City Council's affirmative 8 to 3 vote was one shy of the necessary two-thirds to submit the charter question for a ballot election by the voters. The primary reason reported was that Council was not allowed to determine the exact structure of the charter commission pursuant to state law.
In 2006, an ordinance providing for the submission of the charter issue to the city's voters was defeated by a vote of 8 to 4, failing to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote.
Discussions were revived in 2010 and 2013.
(A SCPR Note: color added to emphasize different years)
The 2010 discussion was the subject of a June 14, 2010 SCPR blog.
The 2010 charter government initiative was doomed to failure because it was perceived by council members as being politically motivated because the effort was being pushed by a former Stark County Republican Party executive director and the-then Republican councilman (interesting enough, Edmond Mack's predecessor) Mark Butterworth.
Butterworth was a timid soul who had very little if any political courage and therefore had no chance whatsoever to get council to consider his proposal to go charter.
Ward 2 Councilman Tom West (a Democrat) was then chairman of council's judiciary committee and he was not about to allow Butterworth's proposal to get out of committee.
On August 19, 2013, Councilman West debated the issue in a special session of the judiciary committee:
As sort of a "coming out" on the charter government issue, Ward 8 Councilman Edmond Mack stepped boldly forward in support of charter government for Canton:
Mack's presentation was a fine argument for Canton to go charter but it lacked specificity in terms of "concrete advantages" for Canton.
Last night in the Committee of the Whole he supplied those specifics.
After the meeting, the SCPR spoke further with Mack:
To the SCPR, the main thing about those councilpersons opposing charter government is "fear about what may happen to their individual political careers.
One such councilman, the SCPR believes, is Councilman Jim Griffin (Democrat - Ward 3).
One has to read between the lines spoken by Griffin, but The Report thinks his opposition is a worry about what happens to Jim Griffin in a newly structured Canton City Council.
Another unspoken concern about reworking Canton government on the part of a few on council, the SCPR thinks, is a suspicion that a proposal will emerge that allows Republicans to get a toehold into a future Canton city council.
On the latter point, who really believes that Republicans in a 9 to 1 registered Democrat supermajority voter base can under any conceivable restructuring could achieve much more than one seat on council.
Butterworth (mostly, the SCPR thinks because of timidity) lasted only one term as a councilman (2010 - 2011).
Richard Hart (a former Republican, now an independent) who was formerly on council as a Republican likely now is on council because Democratic at large candidate Roland K. Burns, III shot himself in "the political foot."
On the former point, Griffin and other council fearfuls (Ohio law does not allow council members to be on the commission) fail to realize is that it is highly unlikely that there will be any change whatsoever in the structure of Canton city government as a consequence of a proposal being written by a 15 member charter commission whose work will have to pass a vote of the people.
The best chance for voter approval is to be able to tell the Canton voting public is for a commission to leave the structure of Canton government unchanged and to make the argument that Allen Schulman and others make: "Better that Canton run its own ship to the extent allowed by Ohio law rather than being dictated to by the State of Ohio."
Another factor that might be the catalyst that Canton needs to get "over the hump" in going charter is the bold, courageous leadership of Edmond Mack.
The SCPR sees Mack:
- as a very bright guy,
- who can think his way through the issues inherent in a discussion of Canton going charter,
- gain the ear of those who are skittish about change, and
- provide solid, convincing reasons why Cantonians should give charter a chance
He more than held his own against the much more experienced (ten years) as a councilman Thomas West back on August 19, 2013 as they more or less debated the issue.
Mack certainly understands that Canton's history on the going charter consideration does not bode well for his current effort.
But he is unbowed.
He knows he has five votes.
The question is whether or not Edmond Mack can find three more between now and Canton council's next meeting of July 14th.
The SCPR believes he will.
And if he does not, The Report does not think he will "tuck tail" and run away from the measure.
Edmond Mack is not a quitter.
Sooner or later he will get Cantonians the opportunity to vote on whether Canton will have the greatest measure possible of local control or they prefer to be dictated to by the State of Ohio.
Presented to the voters as Canton versus Columbus, how can the issue fail?
For those councilpersons who are posed to vote "no" on Mack's legislation, the question is why would they get in the way of democracy in action?
SCPR ANNEXED PUBLICATION
Here is a Law Director Martuccio's entire "LOCAL GOVERNMENT - TO CHARTER OR NOT TO CHARTER (without original formatting)
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT - TO CHARTER OR NOT TO CHARTER? (A primer by Law Director Joe Martuccio)
HISTORY
The State of Ohio has approximately 250 cities. Over 180 of them have charters, or localized constitutions. The City of Canton is one of the largest cities in Ohio without a charter. It operates subject to laws prescribed by the Ohio General Assembly in Title VII of the Ohio Revised Code. Canton is called a statutory city because it operates according to State statutes under what is commonly known as the General statutory form of government. Pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, from which all local governmental power is derived, political subdivisions have the right to protect the public health, safety and welfare as provided by state law.
In 1912, the Ohio Constitution was amended by the adoption of Article XVIII which is known as the "Home Rule Amendment." Home Rule powers are self executing and do not necessarily require a statute or adoption of a charter to implement them. However, a charter may afford a municipality some flexibility in matters that are of unique local concern as opposed to general statewide concern. Most of Ohio's largest cities voted for charters prior to 1920.
CANTON'S CHARTER ATTEMPTS
In 1913, over 60% of Canton's resident voters rejected the first proposed charter, which suggested that its local government be operated by five non-partisan commissioners.
In 1921, nearly 70% of Canton's voters rejected a charter that proposed a city manager form of government with a seven member council.
In 1962, 71% of Canton's voters rejected a proposed charter that would have had all members of council elected at large, among other changes. The proposed 9 member council would have been quite a change from the existing 15 member council, including 12 from wards, and 3 at large. Many of the proposed changes have come to pass, e.g. more simplified publication in the reading and summarizing of ordinances, a Mayor and Law Director to be elected for four year terms separately, professional qualifications for some members of the Board of Health, and other less significant changes.
In 1984, City Council indefinitely tabled a resolution to submit the issue of forming a charter government to the Canton City voters.
In 1987, City Council's affirmative 8 to 3 vote was one shy of the necessary two-thirds to submit the charter question for a ballot election by the voters. The primary reason reported was that Council was not allowed to determine the exact structure of the charter commission pursuant to state law.
In 2006, an ordinance providing for the submission of the charter issue to the city's voters was defeated by a vote of 8 to 4, failing to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote. Discussions were revived in 2010 and 2013.
GETTING STARTED
Adopting a charter involves two steps. First, either a two-thirds vote (8) on a council ordinance or the councilmanic submission of a petition of 10% of the electors is necessary to place the issue on the ballot. The question of whether or not a commission shall be elected to propose and frame a charter must be placed on a ballot for the voters of the entire city. The ballot is non-partisan. It would present the voters with two issues. The first is whether or not a charter commission is to be chosen to frame a charter and second, the voters would be asked to elect 15 members from the city at large to comprise the charter commission. If a majority of the voters vote for forming a charter commission, then the same votes are tallied to determined who the commission consists of. Selection could occur during a general, special or primary election, and its timing depends on the passage of the ordinance.
The 15 member commission would be charged with assembling a proposed charter, mailing it to all electors and scheduling a vote during a primary, general or special election within one year of the election of the charter commission. According to the Ohio attorney general, a member of city council may not serve as a member of a municipal charter commission.
The charter would describe the form of government, e.g. strong mayor, weak mayor, city manager or some other form of government. The charter should provide for formal periodic charter review. The charter may also seek to frame an identical form of government, which is subject to periodic, incremental changes.
CHOICES
Having a charter does not appear to be a "magic bullet", as many cities with charters also experience financial difficulties, and litigation over the extent of their home rule powers. However, proponents of charter government believe it can operate more efficiently. Careful thought, analysis and discussion is necessary on the major decision of whether to proceed with the pursuit of a charter.
PROs CONs
Flexibility No increase in Constitutional
Structure, choices power when state laws conflict
Combining positions Potential loss of individual
accountability
Council composition Initial costs
- terms Possibly fewer checks and
balances
- primaries
Civil service modifications
Citizen vote Charter review
JM/tk/2000Memos&Letters/Charter
Revised 8/4/2010,6/2014
