In November, Mount Vernon residents will vote on whether or not they wish to elect a commission to create a city charter. This is part two of a series which aims to answer some of the most important questions surrounding the vote, defining what a charter government might look like in Mount Vernon and how it might affect city government moving forward.
To read part one of the series – “What is a charter government?” – click here.
MOUNT VERNON – On Nov. 6, voters will decide whether or not to elect a commission to frame Mount Vernon’s first city charter.
While a charter could change everything about the way city government operates, it could also change nothing. It all depends on the desires of the commission.
As evidenced by city council’s 5-2 vote to put the question “Shall a commission be chosen to frame a charter?” on the ballot, there are city officials on both sides of the issue. Some see no downsides in forming a charter, while others are asking why things need to change.
For those who support the charter idea, almost all of the perceived benefits that come with it stem from the idea that a charter government would grant Mount Vernon residents control over how their government functions. Under statutory government, all decisions on how local government operates come from the state level.
“It’s a one-size-fits-all approach,” council member Matt Starr said. Starr, who publicly supported the idea of a charter while running for mayor in 2015, voted in favor of charter language on this year’s ballot.
Adopting a charter would allow Mount Vernon residents to take control over the way their government functions. This idea of local control could manifest itself in many different ways.
The charter commission, which would be made up of 15 Mount Vernon residents who don’t hold city offices, would consider public input when writing the charter. This model is attractive to people like Starr, who believe that decision-making at the local level should be made by local people.
“I just feel better about people in Mount Vernon telling us what’s better for us to do than people in Columbus,” Starr said.
Council member Chris Menapace, who also voted in favor of charter language on the November ballot, said a charter government would allow Mount Vernon residents to take control of their own destiny.
“There’s no greater form of democracy than council giving to the general public the ability to take on the responsibility to restructure our government,” Menapace said.
Starr also argued that establishing a charter government could reduce the size of government in Mount Vernon.
“If we have our own set of home rules and we feel that the state is overreaching in their bounds and their authority, we at least have a chance at legal recourse,” Starr said. “Under the statutory form of government, we’ve just gotta sit there and take it. We can’t do anything. And that doesn’t sit well with me.”
However, some believe Mount Vernon simply does not need a charter.
Council member Nancy Vail, who voted against putting charter language on the November ballot, cited Mount Vernon’s 200-plus year history under statutory government, which she believes has been successful in serving the needs of its residents.
“Mount Vernon (is) one of the very best cities in which to reside and rear families,” Vail said in an e-mail. “Let’s not risk spoiling it by thinking the unknown might be better. Remember, hindsight is 20/20.”
Part two of this series will examine the central themes of a charter government, according to city officials and independent experts, and why some within the city are for or against a potential charter.
Structural flexibility
There are 188 cities in Ohio that have charter governments, and theoretically, all could be different in some way.
The charter commission has ultimate flexibility in framing the charter to best fit the city it serves, which is attractive to those who support the idea. Under statutory government, there is less wiggle-room for structural change.
For example, one of the bigger decisions the commission would have to make is what type of government the city should have.
According to Garry Hunter, legal counsel for the Ohio Municipal League (a non-profit organization that serves city governments across the state), commissions will often choose one of four ways to structure government when framing a charter.
The first type of government is the “strong mayor” form of government, which most closely resembles the statutory form of government. Here, the mayor appoints the city’s boards and commissions, as well as positions like city attorney (which is the charter version of law director) and fiscal officer (the charter version of auditor). The mayor usually appoints these positions without the advice of city council, Hunter said.
The second type of government is the “weak mayor” form of government, which puts more power in the hands of city council. The mayor’s appointments are typically approved with the advice and consent of council in this form, and council can veto appointments. The mayor lacks veto power over council votes in this form of government.
The third type of government is the “council-city manager” form of government, which Hunter said is the most common among charter cities in Ohio. In this form, the mayor becomes ceremonial in function and there is an even stronger balance of power.
Council would hire a city manager, which is typically a professional who specializes in this line of work. The city manager would essentially serve as the CEO of the city government, overseeing public services while council exercises most of the power.
Council would typically be responsible for passing legislation and city ordinances, while the city manager would be responsible for appointing department heads and directors. The city manager is appointed and dismissed by council.
Hunter estimated that 70 percent of Ohio charter cities adopt a council-city manager form of government.
The fourth type of government, which Hunter said is far less common than the rest, is the “commission” form of government. Hunter believes that only five or six charter cities in Ohio use this form of government, with the largest being Dayton.
This form emulates the way county governments operate, electing commissioners to serve as the legislative body and the executive body. Dayton’s city commission consists of five citizens, including an elected mayor. The city commission passes ordinances and legislation while also appointing a city manager.
While these four forms of charter government are the most common, Hunter said, it is important to note that in reality, a charter commission can make any changes it wants to fit the needs of the community. Amendments to charters are made often, Hunter said. Under a statutory model, such flexibility is nonexistent.
Menapace emphasized that if the commission does not wish to make any major changes to the city’s government structure, they don’t have to. But if the city were to adopt a charter government, they would at least have the option to make change.
“I don’t see a downside to a charter,” Menapace said. “I don’t see one at all. Because at the end of the day, we could form a charter government and change absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. We could say, ‘Yep, we want a charter,’ and the commission could get together and 15 months later put it on the ballot and they change nothing. It’s the exact same government we have now except in the future, if we wanted to change something, we could.”
At-large, nonpartisan election structure
Adopting a charter government also means that the commission will decide how city elections are structured.
Charter governments have the capability of holding nonpartisan elections, if the commission chooses to do so. They can also do away with wards and have all candidates run at-large in city council elections.
Under statutory government, elected officials run on partisan platforms and council members represent the different wards of a city.
“You take politics, in a sense, out of the process when you do it,” Hunter said.
Once elected officials get in office, their terms can be adjusted as well in a charter government.
For example, a charter commission might choose to make it so that council members serve staggered, four-year terms – one year, four members would be up for election, and two years later, the other three would be up for election. That way, elections would occur every two years and there would never be a complete changeover in council.
“You have more continuity, you don’t have the possibility of everybody going out the door at one time,” Hunter said.
Heightened hiring standards
One of the main reasons why cities adopt a charter government, according to Hunter, is because they seek a level of professionalism within city government.
Commissions will often structure their charter so that the city government will have the ability to hire trained professionals to be the city manager, city attorney and fiscal officer. Under statutory government, the only requirement to run for mayor or auditor is to be a registered voter and city resident. There is no educational or experience-based background required.
The law director is required to be a city resident, a registered voter and have a law degree under statutory law.
When a commission forms a charter, Hunter said they will often look to change the government structure so that the mayor, city attorney and fiscal officer become appointed positions, not elected. If a city manager position is added, council will appoint that person as well.
Under a charter government, city council might look to hire an experienced city manager and a fiscal officer with a CPA, for example. A charter would also allow the city to hire officials from outside Mount Vernon, broadening their search for the most qualified city officials.
Hunter said that many of the bigger charter cities will choose to raise their hiring standards due to the complexity of city officials’ jobs in today’s world.
“You know, I started practicing local government in 1977, and it’s a hundred, two hundred times more complicated now with all the federal laws that apply to us and all the state laws that are out there,” Hunter said. “So it’s a lot more complicated.”
Although a commission has the capability of making these hiring practices possible, it is by no means required under charter government. At the end of the day, the commission will decide how to structure the way in which the city fills its offices.
Mount Vernon mayor Richard Mavis acknowledged the possibility of heightened educational requirements for city officials, although he also said that city auditor Terry Scott has served the city well and has been re-elected several times by city residents.
“We have a good one here,” Mavis said.
He also believes that the position of city attorney (or law director) won’t change much due to the fact that a law degree is already required to run for the position. Rob Broeren has served as Mount Vernon’s law director for three years and has been involved with the department for many more.
A charter commission can also change the way civil service promotions occur.
Under statutory law, city government typically follows the traditions of civil service. This means that when a police or fire department officer position is open, the department must hire from within through a promotional system that features a civil service exam and an assessment center.
A charter may allow a department to look outside their own building to fill a position.
“That’s how we select our leadership positions, is based on a written test and an interview. And that’s not a very effective system of filling a leadership role,” Starr said. “I’m not against advancing through the chain of command, in fact that’s my favorite way of doing it, but sometimes you’ve got to recruit outside your own talent pool.”
Menapace, who served as a chief officer within the Mount Vernon Fire Department for seven years, called the statutory form of civil service promotion “archaic.”
“It hasn’t developed with public safety. It was great when it first came out, it was great when it was first initiated, and people needed guidance and we needed to do things firm, fair and consistent across the board,” Menapace said.
“But now the fire and EMS industry, along with police, it has developed at a much higher rate and I don’t know that the constraints that civil service places on the hiring practice, I don’t know if they’re as applicable as they once were.”
When considering the statutory standards for elected officials and the civil service promotion practices for city safety departments, which could both change under a charter, Starr summed up his beliefs by comparing the city government’s employment standards to those of the institutions which inhabit the city.
“We’re expecting our businesses to hire the best and the brightest in the world, our educational institutions to hire extremely talented people, and they don’t all come from Mount Vernon or Knox County,” Starr said. “Sometimes we have to hire outside to raise the bar.”
***
Among other potential benefits of a charter government, city officials noted that spending limits for department heads could be altered and the city’s bidding process could be changed to potentially allow smaller purchases to be approved quicker. A charter could also allow for the creation of additional city departments, such as Human Resources.
Again, all of this would be decided by a charter commission if the vote were to pass on November 6.
Mavis recommended that city residents put deep thought into the vote, as forming a charter commission could greatly change the way their city operates.
“I think it’s important that our people understand that this is an opportunity to pull this together and build what they want. Although I have to admit, we have not had a lot of controversy in the government we currently have, and some people make these judgements on what their experience is,” Mavis said. “So (it’s about) getting them to realize that they could have the same, only it would be under a charter, which gives them more flexibility.”
Starr noted that the charter process “is much more engaging to the voting public,” as city residents would have more power under a charter government.
“A group of your peers, essentially, forms the commission or is elected to the commission if the public determines that the commission shall be elected in November,” Starr said. “Our neighbors, our friends, our family members get a chance to develop our own constitution.
“And I really love that balance of power. I mean the constitutionalist in me comes out because I think this is really kind of cool and we’re repeating the process of what our forefathers did back in the 1700s. I mean, it’s really kind of endearing.”
Menapace, who has been a city resident, employee, administrator and now elected official, said that has seen how the city’s government works from all possible angles. He believes it’s time for a change.
“I literally have worn every hat that’s possible and I have been able to look at the structure from all those different lenses,” Menapace said. “And I have been able to identify, ‘Wow, if we had a charter there could be a lot of different things that we could do better.’
“I think Mount Vernon as a whole has become institutionalized. We kind of do it our way. There’s ‘this is the way it’s done’ and then there’s the Mount Vernon way. And it doesn’t need to be that way. We don’t need to continue to try to reinvent the wheel. There’s 188 other cities that do this and it’s working great for them. Why is that?”
Not all city officials are behind the charter concept, however. Vail, who was one of two council members to vote against the ballot language in July, said in an e-mail statement that she did not see a need for change.
Vail said that Mount Vernon “has long been unique in our care for one another, and we continue to enjoy the benefits of being a successful ‘statutory’ city government operating under the Ohio Revised Code.”
She noted the city’s thorough checks and balances system, where legislation must go through three readings before being passed by council. She referred to the democratic nature of the current government, where residents can voice their concerns to council members and freely contact city administration. She listed the array of boards and commissions made up by community volunteers, which serve different needs in the community.
Knox Pages tried to reach Janis Seavolt, the other council member who voted against charter language on the November ballot, multiple times for this story, although she did not respond.
Seavolt said during council’s July meeting that she liked the current form of civil service promotion because “we know who we are advancing.” Vail agreed.
Vail said in the July meeting that she felt there would not be balanced representation on the charter commission and that council should take into account the opinions of the residents who showed up to the meeting, many of whom voiced displeasure over the idea.
Resident Don Carr told council before the vote that he felt many Mount Vernon residents were content with their current form of government.
“Many residents feel that our present form of local government has served Mount Vernon citizens very well before and after 1912, when home rule became available as an option to Ohio municipalities,” he told council.
“If you don’t help citizens understand in-depth the logic to move from a tried-and-true form of government to some unknown structure, you’re just asking for public confusion and a defeat of the referendum at the polls and the waste of time and money for all involved.”
Menapace said in the meeting that he did not believe what he’s heard is a consensus of city residents, only a passionate few.
“We need to be very careful to not allow a dozen people represent the views of 16,000 plus,” he said.
The next story in this series will look at why a charter government has or hasn’t worked for other Ohio cities and will discuss whether or not Mount Vernon officials believe the charter issue will realistically pass in November.
