A member of a citizens’ committee that recommended two revisions to the Northwood city charter blasted council at a July 14 council meeting for failing to place them on the ballot for this fall.

Voters must approve any changes made to the city charter.

The Charter Review Committee, comprised of seven Northwood residents, met this year to review possible changes in the city charter and unanimously agreed to two recommendations: Reduce the number of council seats to five from seven, and remove from the charter a section that limits military duty for council members to 45 days before they would lose their seats.

City council this month tabled both recommendations, making it impossible to meet a deadline set by the Wood County Board of Elections to make it on the November ballot.

Craig Kohring, a member of the committee, slammed council for failing to act on the recommendations.

“I can only say, are you kidding me?” Kohring, a former councilman, said to council.

“What are you afraid of? Losing your job? Do you have a guilty conscience? City council authorized an independent charter review committee to review the city charter and make recommendations. The committee did this. With unanimous approval, two items were forwarded to council for placement on the ballot,” said Kohring. “In a stunning and appalling decision,” added Kohring, council had failed to act.

“Again, I say, `Are you kidding me?’” said Kohring.

He said the charter is “very clear” about a city council member losing their job if they left their seats for active military duty for over 45 days.

“Is this the kind of respect those who serve our country deserve? Is this the way we treat those who defend the very freedom that we are here to talk about tonight? I certainly hope not. However, two of you felt you did not have enough information to make an informed decision, or it wasn’t important enough to remove it from the city charter by a vote of the general population. Evidently, you believe that you can enforce the duties and obligations of the outdated charter all on your own,” he said.

Kohring was also disappointed that council did not approve placing on the ballot the committee’s recommendation to reduce the number of council seats to five.

He particularly noted that Councilman Ed Shimmel had said at a previous meeting that he was unable to attend the charter review committee meetings and needed more time.

“Why would you need to slow down on such a simple task with a unanimous recommendation from the committee you approved?” said Kohring. 

Districts 
He also slammed Shimmel for saying he would have liked the charter review committee to have discussed the possibility of having districts.

“Are you kidding me?”’ said Kohring. “This was discussed in the committee and a resounding and unanimous `no’ was given to that idea. Let’s divide our city even more. Let’s split it up into districts so that we could pit east versus west, or north versus south, or central city versus outlying districts. Our city is already divided by these railroad tracks. Why interject another division? The comprehensive plan review committee recognized this several years ago, and they made a point that the only way to make the recommendations in the plan work is to have a united city. The charter review committee shared that philosophy.”

Kohring suggested, since the recommendations will not be on the fall ballot, setting up meetings to discuss the recommendations further.

“Since this recommendation appears it will not be put on the ballot for the citizens of our city to decide this November, maybe it would be a good time to step back, take a deep breath, and consider the options available in our city,” he said. “Maybe setting up a few more meetings of our charter review committee so it’s more convenient for city council members or the public to attend would be beneficial to all. Maybe if some on city council could take time out of their busy schedules to attend one of the meetings, you might even hear some of the other topics that were discussed but dismissed because it would be too much to assume, such as term limits.”

Councilman Randy Kozina said if council had voted on placing on the ballot the recommendation to reduce the number on council, and it was approved by voters, there were several provisions of the charter that require five votes of council, including the removal of a council member, that would have to be changed.

“Therefore, if we have five councilmen, unless someone voted to remove themselves, we wouldn’t even be able to remove council members. I don’t think I’m opposed to five councilmen, however there are nine or 10 items that need to be taken care of before that can go to the ballot. Otherwise, it’s going to be totally ridiculous,” said Kozina.

No input
He also said he had problems with the recommendation to remove from the charter the section that limits military duty for council members to 45 days.

“I am definitely not against that. However, we need to know whether we need to do it or not. It’s kind of pointless to put something on the ballot when there’s a provision in the charter that says basically if it’s illegal, you can’t do it anyway,” said Kozina.

Shimmel said most communities in the area have seven members on council.

“I looked at the board of elections site, and it appears every other city and village in Wood County has seven members,” said Shimmel. “So right off the bat, it’s not like other communities have gone to five members. Secondly, council was not given any input in this thing. We didn’t get to pick the members who were on the committee. They were all picked outside of any of our decisions. I got two days notice of the first meeting. The members who were on the committee, I know, had more than that notice. So I did not appear at that meeting. Addressing districts, most cities do have districts. And I think it’s a good idea to have districts, especially in a city like ours where you have almost two different communities. I know all my neighbors feel underrepresented in the city. Every one of them I’ve spoken to. And they all have told me that having districts was a good idea. That’s why I really wanted that discussed.”

He added that “there was no point in voting to put this on the ballot because there wasn’t ample time to put it on the ballot.”

“As councilman Kozina said, there were so many provisions in the charter that needed to be changed, we could not just put this one item on the ballot. It would be pointless,” said Shimmel.

Councilman Dave Gallaher, who was chairman of the charter review committee, took issue with Shimmel’s comment that council did not get to pick the members who were on the committee.

“For the record, Ed, the members of the charter review committee were approved by council, and every council member at the meeting was given an opportunity to bring a name forward. No one would have been turned away from the charter review committee,” said Gallaher.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed