Minutes - Charter Review

200 S. Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Charter Review

Ethan Barnhardt, Chair

Carrin Wester, Vice Chair

Jamie Belisle

Edward A. Hill, Jr.

Richard Maxwell

Raymond J. Mularski

Karen Reynolds

Jeremy A. VanMeter, Clerk of Council

Thursday, June 4, 2026

6:30 PM

Council Chambers, City Hall

CALL TO ORDER: Pledge of Allegiance & Roll Call.

Chair Ethan Barnhardt called the Regular Meeting of the Gahanna

Charter Review Commission to order on Thursday, June 4, 2026, at

6:31 p.m. and led members in the Pledge of Allegiance. The agenda

was published on Monday, June 1, 2026.

6 -

Present

Ethan Barnhardt, Jamie Belisle, Edward A. Hill Jr., Richard Maxwell,

Raymond J. Mularski, and Karen Reynolds

1 - Carrin Wester

Absent

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA.

None.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

2026-0116

2026-0117

Charter Review Commission Special Minutes 2026-05-14

Charter Review Commission Minutes 2026-05-21

A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Reynolds, that the Minutes for

May 14, 2026 and May 21, 2026, be Approved. The motion carried by the

following vote:

6 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Maxwell, Mularski and Reynolds

1 - Wester

Yes:

Absent:

PUBLIC COMMENT.

None.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

2026-0050

Draft Charter Amendment Proposals for Charter Review Commission

2026

Chair Barnhardt clarified that the Commission was continuing its review

of proposed charter amendment language drafted by City Attorney

Tamilarasan rather than conducting a proposal inventory review. He

stated that he expected the discussion to finalize the remaining language

revisions and position the Commission to take formal action at its final

scheduled meeting on June 18, 2026. He noted that he had previously

anticipated the possibility of an additional meeting but believed the

Commission had made sufficient progress to complete its revisions and

move forward with final consideration at the next meeting. Chair

Barnhardt then turned the discussion over to City Attorney Tamilarasan to

provide an overview of the revisions incorporated since the

Commission’s last discussion. He advised commissioners that they

could ask questions, offer suggestions, and discuss any additional

amendments that had been updated since the previous meeting.

Scrivener’s Error and Ward Composition Discussion

City Attorney Tamilarasan reviewed the draft document titled “Item 40.

Proposed Article Exhibit Draft 5.28.2026.” She explained that, on page

one, she had corrected a scrivener’s error by removing the word “is” from

the proposed charter language and had revised the rationale to include a

reference to reducing significant unnecessary costs, reflecting the

Commission’s prior discussion. Moving to page ten regarding ward

composition and terms, City Attorney Tamilarasan reported that she had

incorporated language proposed by Vice Chair Wester at the previous

meeting. She noted that Vice Chair Wester had also submitted

additional language by email and opened the matter for discussion.

Chair Barnhardt invited comments regarding Vice Chair Wester’s email

and stated that he viewed the message as containing additional thoughts

following the previous meeting rather than proposing substantive

changes.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that he believed Vice Chair Wester was

attempting to further refine and clarify the language.

Commissioner Hill asked for City Attorney Tamilarasan’s opinion

regarding the proposed addition of “registered voters” in parentheses

within the language concerning disparities in ward populations. He

questioned whether the proposed wording created ambiguity as to

whether a disparity would need to exist in both population and registered

voters or in either measure individually. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated

that the Commission’s prior consensus had been to shift the focus from

registered voters to population in order to align with practices used in

other jurisdictions and to better support ward balancing. She explained

that adding “registered voters” in parentheses would create unnecessary

ambiguity and confusion. She further stated that the charter should not be

drafted to mirror the code and that the code should instead be amended

to conform to the charter if the amendment passed. She recommended

leaving the language as originally proposed and advised that

reintroducing “registered voters” would move the Commission away from

the direction established during earlier discussions. Commissioner Hill

agreed with City Attorney Tamilarasan’s assessment and thanked her for

the clarification.

Chair Barnhardt agreed that the code should follow the charter rather

than the charter conforming to existing code language. He stated that he

supported leaving the language as drafted with the expectation that the

code would be updated if the amendment passed.

Commissioner Mularski stated that the phrase “20% or more” and “more

than 20%” carried the same meaning. He added that if the Commission

intended to use population as the basis for equalization, the language

should reference only population rather than both population and

registered voters.

Commissioner Maxwell agreed and stated that attempting to clarify the

language by adding “registered voters” had made the provision more

confusing.

Chair Barnhardt observed that a significant disparity in population would

likely correspond with a similar disparity in registered voters and

therefore viewed the additional language as duplicative.

Commissioner Reynolds asked whether the Commission generally

agreed with City Attorney Tamilarasan’s revised draft language.

Commissioner Maxwell responded that the language should remain as

drafted. Commissioner Reynolds indicated her agreement.

Chair Barnhardt then suggested revising the rationale language rather

than the amendment text itself. He stated that the existing rationale more

closely reflected the original proposal and suggested language

explaining that the purpose of the amendment was to shift ward boundary

equalization from a registered voter basis to a resident population basis

using federal decennial census data and establishing criteria for when

ward boundaries may be adjusted.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether the rationale should mention that

population-based ward balancing aligns with the approach used by most

other jurisdictions. Chair Barnhardt asked whether such a statement

should be included in the rationale. Commissioner Hill responded that he

did not believe it was necessary and suggested that including such

language could invite broader discussion regarding the rationale for

multiple amendments. He stated that the Commission could rely on its

understanding of the issue while focusing the rationale on clarity.

Commissioner Maxwell asked whether the Commission had formally

decided to adopt the amendment. Chair Barnhardt clarified that the

Commission was only refining language during the current meeting and

would not take votes until its final meeting. Commissioner Maxwell stated

that he would not be present for the final meeting, and Commissioner

Belisle indicated that she would also be absent. Chair Barnhardt noted

that both commissioners would need to provide their thoughts before the

final vote and suggested that the Commission could discuss alternative

meeting dates later in the meeting. Commissioner Mularski asked

whether a 3-3 tie vote with only six commissioners present would result in

failure of a proposal. City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed that a

proposal would fail in that circumstance because it would require an

affirmative majority vote to pass.

Commissioner Reynolds suggested incorporating the concept of

balancing into the rationale language. She stated that balancing based

on population, as determined by the federal census, better reflected the

intent to keep ward boundaries aligned with changes occurring within the

city. City Attorney Tamilarasan summarized the discussion and proposed

revised rationale language stating that the purpose of the amendment

was to shift ward boundary equalization from a registered voter basis to

a resident population basis by using federal decennial census data and

providing criteria for when balancing or rebalancing became necessary.

Commissioner Reynolds expressed concern with the phrase “the

purpose of the change is to shift,” stating that it implied the change was

already occurring rather than relying on future census data to inform any

balancing decisions. She suggested that the language should reflect that

future data would guide the process. City Attorney Tamilarasan proposed

alternative wording stating that the purpose of the change was to inform

ward boundary equalization using a resident population basis rather than

a registered voter basis. Commissioner Mularski suggested replacing

the word “shift” with “inform” and later proposed using the word “form”

instead. Commissioner Belisle stated that “form” created the same

concern as “shift” because it implied that a change was already taking

place. Chair Barnhardt proposed revised rationale language stating that

the purpose of the amendment was to adjust the ward boundary

equalization process from a registered voter basis to a resident

population basis by utilizing federal decennial census data and

establishing criteria for when ward boundaries might need to be

balanced.

Commissioner Maxwell asked whether the term “decennial” could be

replaced with “10-year” for greater clarity. Chair Barnhardt agreed that

using “10-year census data” would make the language easier to

understand.

At the request of City Attorney Tamilarasan, Chair Barnhardt repeated

the proposed concluding language, stating that the amendment would

establish criteria for when ward boundaries might need to be balanced.

Commissioner Reynolds asked Chair Barnhardt to provide the revised

language to City Attorney Tamilarasan so that she would not need to

recreate it. Chair Barnhardt agreed. City Attorney Tamilarasan asked

whether the Commission had any additional comments on the proposal.

Hearing none, she moved to the next amendment.

Legislative Procedure

City Attorney Tamilarasan reviewed the proposed amendment regarding

legislative procedure on page 12. She explained that the Commission

had decided to retain the language in the first paragraph. As a result, she

removed the explanation associated with the previously proposed

redlined language. She stated that the only remaining redline pertained

to the addition of due process language located on page 14 and that the

accompanying explanation had been revised to remove discussion of

changes that the Commission had not advanced. Chair Barnhardt stated

that he believed the amendment and explanation were satisfactory.

Planning Commission

City Attorney Tamilarasan moved to the next redline, which addressed

the Planning Commission language on page 31. She explained that the

draft inserted language after “its own rules of operation,” including

attendance requirements. She stated that she removed the previously

proposed language requiring attendance at 75% of all regular and

special meetings because the Charter Review Commission wanted to

defer that decision to the Planning Commission. She stated that she

revised the rationale to explain that the purpose of the change was to

remove the current fixed numbered absence threshold and allow the

Planning Commission to determine equitable attendance requirements.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that the revision looked good. City

Attorney Tamilarasan asked whether commissioners had any additional

thoughts on the item.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she had considered adding “including

but not limited to,” but she questioned whether that wording worked

because the provision was not a list. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated

that either approach would be appropriate if the Commission wanted to

add that language. Commissioner Belisle stated that she would defer to

the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Mularski stated that

“including but not limited to” would keep the language more open. Chair

Barnhardt stated that the provision substantially delegated rulemaking

authority to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mularski noted that

the Planning Commission would establish its own rules of operation.

Commissioner Mularski questioned why the language needed to include

attendance requirements if the Commission used broader language.

Commissioner Belisle agreed that this was her concern. Commissioner

Mularski stated that the language appeared because the Commission

had specifically removed attendance requirements, but questioned

whether it remained necessary. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that the

Commission did not need the language and could keep the same

rationale while striking the attendance-requirements phrase.

Commissioner Belisle stated that the Commission could keep the

phrase if it added clarity, but she viewed it as unnecessary or leading.

Commissioner Hill stated that he supported striking the phrase.

Commissioner Mularski also supported striking the language as

unnecessary. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that her only concern was

ensuring that the Planning Commission would set some type of

attendance requirements, but she agreed that the Commission could

leave that decision to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mularski

stated that if the Planning Commission chose not to have attendance

requirements, that decision would belong to that body. Chair Barnhardt

stated that political pressure would likely encourage the Planning

Commission to establish appropriate rules of operation, and a

committee member could raise the issue if problems arose. City Attorney

Tamilarasan stated that her office staffed the Planning Commission and

could also raise the issue. Chair Barnhardt stated that sufficient

mechanisms existed to encourage the Planning Commission to move in

the right direction. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that she would strike

the language.

City Attorney Tamilarasan then moved to the next redline on page 32 and

stated that the only change involved the rationale. She explained that she

added language stating that the consolidation allowed the Planning

Commission, as a public body composed of subject matter experts that

met regularly, to consider all matters involving zoning, building, and

landscaping appeals. She added that, on further review, she wanted to

include variances in the rationale because the Planning Commission

already handled variances. She stated that she wanted to make clear

that the amendment neither limited nor expanded the Planning

Commission’s scope.

Commissioner Mularski asked City Attorney Tamilarasan to identify the

change again. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that she had added the

second sentence of the rationale to better explain the prior discussion.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the current rationale did not clearly explain

that the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals’ authority would transfer to

the Planning Commission. He suggested revised language stating that

the purpose of the change was to repeal the Board of Zoning and

Building Appeals and transfer its powers and duties to the Planning

Commission. He further stated that appeals would continue through the

Planning Commission or the courts as provided by Ohio law, and that the

change intended to consolidate related functions within a single public

body that regularly considered zoning, building, and landscaping matters.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she liked this proposed language.

Commissioner Reynolds asked whether the wording should refer to

“matters” or “appeals.” City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the

Planning Commission handled zoning variances separately from building

and landscaping appeals. She stated that the Planning Commission

determined zoning variances initially and would consider building and

landscaping appeals under the proposed change. Chair Barnhardt

stated that he wanted voters to understand clearly that the responsibilities

would not disappear. He stated that the Commission had previously

discussed the need to make that point clear and that the rationale should

state that the authority would transfer. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated

that she liked the language and asked Chair Barnhardt to send it to her

so she could double-check the scope. Chair Barnhardt agreed.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that the most important point was ensuring

that the Commission did not lose any responsibilities.

Commissioner Reynolds asked whether this change would reduce costs

because the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals was a paid position.

City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that the Commission could include that

point. Chair Barnhardt agreed that the rationale could reference cost

reduction. Commissioner Reynolds stated that the savings might not be

significant. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that the amendment would

still reduce administrative costs. Commissioner Maxwell agreed.

Commissioner Mularski asked whether the addition meant that the

Planning Commission would receive appeals from city officials and

would not hear its own appeals. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that it

would not hear its own appeals. Commissioner Mularski stated that he

had read the language that way and wanted to confirm that

understanding.

Charter Review Commission Convening Interval

City Attorney Tamilarasan reviewed the amendment on page 37 and

stated that the only revision involved the rationale section. She explained

that she had added language stating that the amendment would minimize

constant fluctuation and preserve the integrity of the charter.

Commissioner Mularski asked why Section 22.02 appeared in blue text.

City Attorney Tamilarasan explained that the blue text resulted from a

hyperlink that appeared when she copied and pasted the language from

the code. She stated that she would remove all hyperlinks before issuing

the official report.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he had drafted alternative rationale language

because he did not believe the phrase “constant fluctuation” read

smoothly. He proposed language stating that the purpose of the

amendment was to modify the mandatory Charter Review Commission

convening cycle by extending the interval from five years to ten years in

order to reduce the frequency of charter revisions and promote long-term

stability in the City’s foundational governing document.

Commissioner Hill suggested adding the phrase “also known as the

charter” to the end of the statement. Chair Barnhardt agreed with the

addition.

City Attorney Tamilarasan asked Chair Barnhardt to send her the revised

language. Chair Barnhardt agreed to do so. Commissioner Mularski

requested that Chair Barnhardt send the revised language to all

commissioners.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she liked the phrase “preserve the

integrity of the charter.” Chair Barnhardt responded that if the

Commission wished to retain that phrase, he could send his draft

language to City Attorney Tamilarasan and trusted that she could

incorporate the preferred wording. City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed

that she could do so.

Non-Discrimination Statement and Protected Classes

City Attorney Tamilarasan reviewed the proposed amendment on pages

38 and 39 concerning protected classes and anti-discrimination

language. She explained that she had incorporated language discussed

during previous meetings and revised the list of protected categories.

She stated that questions had arisen regarding whether language taken

from the City’s website reflected the City’s official Equal Employment

Opportunity statement. After further review, she determined that the

website language did not represent the official statement and noted that

the City had corrected the website accordingly. City Attorney

Tamilarasan explained that the employee handbook contained different

language that provided additional explanations and definitions of

protected categories. She stated that those definitions became overly

detailed for inclusion in the Charter. Instead, she aligned the proposed

language with the City’s existing codified protections found in the housing

and criminal codes. She noted that those codes contained a specific list

of protected classes followed by the phrase “or any status protected by

applicable federal, state, or local law.” She stated that this approach

would encompass all intended protections while remaining consistent

with existing City code.

Commissioner Hill asked whether the Commission could reduce

repetition between the protected-class lists appearing on pages 38 and

39. He proposed consolidating the language into a single provision

stating that no appointed or elected official, nor any classified or

unclassified employee of the City, could discriminate against any person

in the discharge of official duties or use protected statuses as a basis to

limit the use or availability of public resources. He suggested using a

single enumerated list of protected statuses followed by the phrase “or

any other status protected by applicable law.” City Attorney Tamilarasan

stated that she liked the idea of consolidation because the second

paragraph only prohibited using protected classes as a basis for limiting

access to public resources. She stated that combining the concepts into

a single section with one enumerated list could accomplish the same

purpose.

Commissioner Mularski stated that the two paragraphs addressed

separate issues and should remain separate. He emphasized that the

provisions prohibited different actions and believed the distinction

warranted separate treatment. Chair Barnhardt asked what legal benefit

existed in separating the provisions rather than consolidating them.

Commissioner Belisle responded that maintaining separate provisions

could provide greater clarity. She stated that duplication could help

readers understand that the Charter addressed two distinct issues,

although she did not hold a strong opinion and understood both

viewpoints. Commissioner Reynolds stated that, as a non-lawyer, she

preferred the consolidated approach. She questioned whether

consolidation would make the Charter less restrictive while still remaining

informative. Commissioner Mularski replied that the language would still

impose restrictions but in different areas. He stated that the provisions

should remain separate even if the Commission used similar language in

both sections because they addressed different subjects.

Commissioner Hill sought clarification regarding whether the conjunction

“nor” adequately connected the two concepts within his proposed

consolidated language. He reread the proposed wording and explained

that his intent was to prohibit discrimination both in the discharge of

official duties and in access to public resources. Commissioner Maxwell

stated that the proposed language appeared to tie the two concepts

together and believed it accomplished that objective. Commissioner

Belisle initially misunderstood Commissioner Hill’s proposal but, after

further discussion, realized that he intended to replace both paragraphs

with a single provision. She acknowledged that understanding and

reconsidered her earlier position. Commissioner Maxwell asked whether

the proposed language effectively combined the restrictions on

discrimination and public resource access into one provision. He stated

that the consolidated version appeared easier to understand and less

repetitive. Commissioner Belisle stated that she would withdraw her

earlier objection after gaining a better understanding of the proposal.

Commissioner Mularski stated that reading the language aloud helped

clarify the relationship between the concepts and requested additional

time to review the proposal before reaching a final conclusion. Chair

Barnhardt stated that consolidating the paragraphs would likely be more

efficient as long as the language preserved the intent and content of both

provisions. Commissioner Mularski stated that he still preferred two

separate paragraphs because separate provisions emphasized that the

Charter prohibited two distinct actions. However, he acknowledged that

the consolidated language likely provided the same legal protections and

requested an opportunity to review the language further before making a

final decision.

Clerk VanMeter offered to display the proposed language on the screen

for review. After reviewing the language, commissioners discussed

several grammatical revisions. Commissioner Belisle observed that the

phrase “applicable law” already appeared earlier in the provision and

believed the omission of repeated references to federal, state, and local

law did not create a problem. City Attorney Tamilarasan reviewed the

wording and noted that several grammatical adjustments remained

necessary. Commissioner Belisle expressed concern that the placement

of the phrase “in the discharge of their official duties” could create

ambiguity regarding whether it modified the employee or the person

experiencing discrimination. City Attorney Tamilarasan agreed and

stated that relocating the phrase would resolve the issue. Commissioner

Mularski clarified that the language should clearly indicate that officials

and employees, rather than the individuals affected, acted in the

discharge of official duties. City Attorney Tamilarasan agreed and stated

that the phrase should move earlier in the sentence. Commissioner

Mularski stated that he liked the consolidated approach after reviewing

the revised wording. Clerk VanMeter asked where the revised phrase

should appear within the sentence. Commissioner Belisle suggested

placing the phrase immediately after the reference to applicable federal,

state, and local laws. City Attorney Tamilarasan suggested placing the

phrase after the word “shall.” Commissioner Belisle proposed revised

wording stating that, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and

local laws, and in the discharge of official duties, no appointed or elected

official, nor any classified or unclassified employee of the City of

Gahanna, shall discriminate against any person. Chair Barnhardt stated

that he supported the revised language. Commissioner Maxwell noted

that the sentence would still need language prohibiting the use of

protected statuses as a basis for limiting access to public resources.

Commissioner Belisle expressed satisfaction with the revised wording.

City Attorney Tamilarasan asked Clerk VanMeter to send her the revised

language and requested clarification regarding its placement within the

document. Clerk VanMeter and City Attorney Tamilarasan confirmed

where the revisions should appear and discussed adding a comma after

the phrase “official duties.” Chair Barnhardt remarked that the

collaborative effort had produced a workable solution and commented

that teamwork had helped improve the language.

City Attorney Section

City Attorney Tamilarasan reviewed the final proposed revision

concerning the City Attorney section on page 28. She explained that

Chair Barnhardt and Vice Chair Wester had asked questions regarding

her proposed redline, which would remove language requiring the City

Attorney to receive direction from Council by resolution or ordinance

before defending certain individuals. City Attorney Tamilarasan

explained that the Charter identified the City Attorney as the legal adviser

and counsel for the City, its officers, and its departments. She noted that

the Charter used the terms “officers” and “employees” interchangeably

and that the provision therefore applied broadly to City officials and

employees. She stated that the existing language created an internal

inconsistency because it suggested that the City Attorney could not

represent an individual employee who faced litigation arising from the

course of employment without specific Council authorization. She further

explained that the language could create complications by allowing

Council to determine whom the City Attorney could or could not defend.

She expressed concern that this arrangement could become problematic

during disagreements between Council and the administration. She

noted that, historically, City Attorneys had represented individual officials

and employees when litigation arose from their employment because

those individuals acted as representatives of the City. She stated that

she had reviewed records in Legistar and found no resolutions or

ordinances authorizing the City Attorney to defend specific individuals.

City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that she did not believe removing the

language would create problems because the Charter already limited

representation to matters arising out of or in the course of employment

with the City. She explained that the provision would not apply to criminal

conduct occurring outside the scope of employment or to willful criminal

acts unrelated to an employee’s official duties.

City Attorney Tamilarasan also summarized her review of other municipal

charters. She stated that Columbus addressed the issue through

ordinance rather than charter language and authorized the City Attorney

to defend officers and employees in suits arising from their employment.

She noted that the Columbus code also addressed conflicts of interest

and reimbursement for special counsel. She explained that

Reynoldsburg’s charter simply directed the City Attorney to defend and

represent the City without additional language regarding employees. She

further stated that Whitehall’s charter mirrored Gahanna’s current

language by requiring Council authorization before the City Attorney

could represent individuals. City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that she

would defer to the Commission’s preference. She explained that

retaining the existing language would not materially affect her duties,

although she believed it created internal inconsistencies and would likely

require her to seek Council authorization whenever questions arose. She

recommended striking the language but stated that she did not feel

strongly enough about the issue to insist upon the change.

Commissioner Mularski stated that the existing language shifted

decision-making authority regarding legal representation from the City

Attorney to City Council. He stated that determining which cases

warranted representation fell within the City Attorney’s professional

responsibilities and that Council should not exercise that authority. He

expressed support for striking the language. Commissioner Hill stated

that he concurred.

Commissioner Belisle asked for clarification regarding the charter

provisions in Columbus and Reynoldsburg. City Attorney Tamilarasan

explained that both charters generally directed the City Attorney to

defend the City and did not specifically address representation of

employees. She noted that the Columbus charter contained language

nearly identical to Gahanna’s provision describing the City Attorney as

legal adviser and counsel for the City and its officers and departments,

while additional details regarding employee representation appeared in

Columbus City Code rather than the charter. Commissioner Belisle then

asked whether the language directing the City Attorney to defend City

officials and employees in such suits should use the word “shall” or “may.”

City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that she believed the word “shall” was

appropriate. She explained that representing officials and employees in

matters arising from their employment constituted a duty of the City

Attorney unless a conflict of interest existed. She noted that Attorney

General opinions, ethical rules, and other legal requirements governed

situations involving conflicts.

Commissioner Mularski confirmed that the discussion concerned matters

arising in the course of employment, and City Attorney Tamilarasan

agreed.

Commissioner Belisle thanked City Attorney Tamilarasan for the

clarification and stated that she supported striking the language as

proposed.

City Attorney Tamilarasan stated that the discussion concluded her

review of the proposed revisions.

Chair Barnhardt thanked City Attorney Tamilarasan for her review of the

revisions and asked whether commissioners had any additional

thoughts, changes, or discussion regarding the proposed amendments.

There was no further discussion.

Final Meeting and Report to Council

Chair Barnhardt noted that several commissioners might be unavailable

for the June 18 meeting and led a discussion regarding the possibility of

scheduling an additional meeting to ensure full participation during final

voting. Commissioners concluded that June 8 at 6:30 p.m. was an

agreeable date, pending Vice Chair Wester's availability, meeting room

availability, and public notice requirements. Clerk VanMeter sent an

emailed meeting invitation, which was accepted by Vice Chair Wester

during discussion, and June 8 at 6:30 p.m. was confirmed. Chair

Barnhardt explained that after the meeting on June 8, he would present

the Commission's recommendations to Council at the July 6 Committee

of the Whole meeting. He encouraged all Commissioners to attend if

possible. City Attorney Tamilarasan agreed to share draft ballot

measures and reminded Commissioners not to reply to group

distribution emails in accordance with the Open Meetings Act.

NEW BUSINESS.

None.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS.

2026-0061

Charter Review Commission Correspondence Received via Clerk

None.

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT.

Commissioner Belisle remarked that the meeting felt empty without Vice

Chair Wester’s presence.

Chair Barnhardt agreed that Vice Chair Wester’s absence had been

noticeable. He then encouraged commissioners to spend time reflecting

on the proposed amendments before the final vote. He stated that the

Commission’s responsibility was not to determine whether each

amendment was perfect or predict how voters might respond, but rather

to determine whether each amendment improved the Charter sufficiently

to justify presenting it to the voters of Gahanna. He emphasized the

importance of the Commission’s responsibility in deciding which

amendments to recommend for the ballot and encouraged

commissioners to consider each proposal through that lens before

returning for final decisions.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether the Commission intended to

discuss and vote on each amendment individually. Chair Barnhardt

confirmed that the Commission would allow final discussion and then

vote each proposal up or down.

Commissioner Mularski stated that he wanted commissioners to

consider ballot fatigue during their deliberations. He reported that

combining the seven department-related amendments into one issue and

the four Board of Zoning and Building Appeals amendments into another

issue would still leave fourteen ballot issues, while leaving each

amendment separate would result in twenty-five issues. He noted that

voters would already face approximately forty pages of material and

cautioned that too many ballot issues could discourage voters from

reviewing all proposed changes. He suggested that commissioners

consider whether certain amendments, particularly those involving only

grammatical revisions, warranted placement on the ballot. Commissioner

Belisle asked Commissioner Mularski whether he recalled how many

charter amendments had appeared on previous ballots. Commissioner

Mularski stated that previous charter reviews appeared to average

between six and ten ballot issues, with one review including

approximately twelve issues, although he noted that he would need to

verify those figures.