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, May 7, 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, May 7, 2026, at

6:30 p.m. and led members in the Pledge of Allegiance. The agenda

was published on May 1, 2026.

7 -

Present

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

Raymond J. Mularski, Karen Reynolds, and Carrin Wester

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA.

None.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

2026-0088

Charter Review Commission Minutes 2026-04-23

A motion was made by Wester, seconded by Belisle, that the Minutes be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

7 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Maxwell, Mularski, Reynolds and Wester

Yes:

PUBLIC COMMENT.

None.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

Amendment to the Commission Process Architecture (Prioritization Matrix)

Chair Barnhardt opened discussion on the suggested amendment to the

commission process architecture that the commission had tabled at the

previous meeting. He stated that the discussion continued the

conversation from the prior meeting, during which the commission

determined that it preferred to have the full commission present because

the full commission had adopted the matrix and process architecture. He

stated that it made sense to have everyone present before making any

changes. Chair Barnhardt reminded the commission that, in the

memorandum distributed prior to the previous meeting, he had

recommended applying the prioritization matrix to all remaining draft

ballot measures that had cleared the two thresholds. He explained that

the matrix was intended to inform, but not dictate, the commission’s

decision-making by providing a consistent, transparent, and comparative

basis for determining which measures would rise to the top. He then

opened the floor for additional comments and discussion on the

approach and stated that, at the appropriate time, he would entertain a

motion to adopt the refinement before the commission began scoring

later that evening.

Commissioner Belisle asked for clarification on whether Chair Barnhardt

recommended using the prioritization matrix for simple housekeeping

changes as well.

Chair Barnhardt responded that the commission initially had placed

items into two tracks: housekeeping and structural. He stated that the

framework had been beneficial in helping create the draft ballot

measures because many housekeeping items could be grouped

together. He explained that the framework made sense for refining the

process and developing the draft ballot measures. He further stated that,

after reducing the number of potential ballot measures from well over 20

to 13, the most efficient way to prioritize them would be to apply the

matrix to all remaining ballot measures. He stated that doing so would

provide a quantifiable number for each measure to help prioritize which

measures to advance.

Commissioner Mularski asked Chair Barnhardt to restate the motion.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the commission could make a motion to

amend the adopted prioritization architecture to apply the prioritization

matrix to all remaining measures.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether Chair Barnhardt was putting forth

the motion. He noted he provided suggested language. Commissioner

Belisle then made a motion to approve the amendment as stated by

Chair Barnhardt. Vice Chair Wester seconded the motion.

A motion was made by Belisle, seconded by Wester, to amend the adopted

prioritization architecture to apply the prioritization matrix to all remaining

measures. The motion carried by the following vote:

7 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill, Maxwell, Mularski, Reynolds and Wester

Yes:

NEW BUSINESS.

Proposal Inventory Review and Deliberation

2026-0050

Draft Charter Amendment Proposals for Charter Review Commission

2026

Chair Barnhardt stated that the commission would move to the next item

of new business, the proposal inventory review. He explained that, at the

previous meeting, the commission had begun applying the threshold

framework and narrowing the universe of proposals. He stated that the

commission would continue that work and hoped to finish the threshold

review and begin scoring and prioritization. Chair Barnhardt reminded

the commission that the process involved three steps: determining

whether an item was appropriate for the charter, determining whether the

commission had sufficient information or education to evaluate it, and

moving into deliberation and scoring. Because several members had

been absent from the previous meeting, he reopened the floor for

discussion on whether any remaining draft ballot measures did not

belong in the charter and would be more appropriate for ordinance policy

or administrative action. He invited commissioners who had not attended

the previous meeting to share their thoughts on any items they believed

were not charter-level matters.

Vice Chair Wester stated that the previous meeting had involved

significant discussion and explained that Chair Barnhardt had guided the

commission through three questions. She stated that the first question

addressed whether a proposal belonged at the charter level and cited

CRC 019, which involved excused absences and clarifications for the

Planning Commission, as an example of a proposal the commission had

eliminated because it did not belong in the charter. She stated that the

second question addressed whether the commission needed more

information or lacked sufficient information to evaluate a proposal.

Commissioner Reynolds asked whether, aside from the proposals

already struck, the remaining 13 proposals represented the measures

the commission planned to score that evening.

Chair Barnhardt confirmed that the commission had 13 remaining

proposals unless members struck additional items. He added that the

commission had also struck one individual section from draft ballot

measure 11.

Commissioner Maxwell stated his understanding that the commission

was examining the city council versus mayoral structure.

Chair Barnhardt confirmed that understanding and stated that, if no

commissioners believed additional proposals should be eliminated as

non-charter-level matters, the commission could move into discussion on

that topic. He noted that the commission had tabled the matter previously

to allow for additional context and discussion. He stated that the

discussion concerned draft ballot measure number four, which

addressed a council-manager form of government. Chair Barnhardt

stated that commissioners present at the previous meeting had engaged

in discussion and had received substantial education earlier in the

process from a presenter invited to speak to the commission. He stated

that the commission wanted to ensure all members had an opportunity to

discuss the item and consider comments and suggestions submitted to

the commission. He then opened the floor for discussion.

Commissioner Mularski asked whether the proposal had been placed in

the category requiring more information. Chair Barnhardt confirmed that

it had and asked for thoughts on the specific item.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether the commission was discussing

striking the proposal or continuing discussion. Chair Barnhardt stated

that the commission had not yet decided whether to strike the proposal,

seek additional education, or determine whether the commission could

adequately address the matter within the remaining timeframe.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she understood the commission had

issued a call to action for the community to provide additional information

if members wanted the proposal to move forward. She stated that the

commission had not received any additional information and moved to

strike proposal 27.

Commissioner Maxwell asked which proposal the commission

discussed and stated that he believed Chair Barnhardt had referred to

proposal four.

Chair Barnhardt acknowledged the confusion and explained that the

commission had started with original proposals and later grouped them

under ballot items. He clarified that the discussion concerned CRC 027.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that CRC 027 was the proposal he had

referenced. Chair Barnhardt acknowledged the clarification.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that, because she had not attended the

previous meeting, she had reviewed approximately two hours of the prior

discussion to become familiar with the issue. She stated that she did not

believe the earlier presentation had fully developed into a learning

discussion and noted that Councilmember Padova had introduced the

topic broadly before the discussion shifted direction. Commissioner

Reynolds stated that she wanted to hear more about Ms. Padova’s

comments because she believed the topic reflected concerns she heard

within the community and from City Council. Commissioner Reynolds

also stated that she agreed with a request submitted by Vice Chair

Wester regarding the attachment addressing the city manager and

appointment of the law director or law clerk. She stated that the proposed

change carried significance for her and that she did not want to strike the

proposal if that concept moved forward. She explained that she viewed

the issues as connected because, if council selected one position, she

believed Council should also select the other to reduce party involvement.

She expressed concern about the expansion of leadership authority and

referenced comments she had submitted by email regarding the

absence of mayoral term limits and uncertainty about future leadership.

She stated that she worried about the potential concentration of power

within the city government. Commissioner Reynolds also referenced

concerns about embedding the strategic plan into the charter and the

possibility of increasing financial obligations, including annual costs

associated with the strategic plan. She stated that she wanted the

commission to continue discussing and considering the proposal and

that she remained open to exploring new governmental structures and

related proposals together.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she could not speak on behalf of Vice

Chair Wester but explained that, based on their conversations, she

interpreted Vice Chair Wester’s submission as relating more to elector

qualifications than to a change in government structure. She stated that

she did not believe Vice Chair Wester had proposed changing to a city

manager and law director structure and invited correction if her

understanding was inaccurate.

Commissioner Mularski raised a point of order and asked to second the

motion so the commission could discuss it. He noted that Commissioner

Belisle’s motion had not yet received a second. Commissioner Belisle

clarified that her motion sought to strike proposal 27.

Vice Chair Wester clarified her earlier comments and stated that she

wanted Commissioner Reynolds to have an opportunity to speak

because Commissioner Reynolds had asked Councilmember Padova

follow-up questions. Vice Chair Wester stated that the commission had

remained open to feedback throughout the process. She acknowledged

that Ms. Padova had presented comments and that several

commissioners, including herself, had asked follow-up questions. Vice

Chair Wester explained that she had looked for objective reasons

explaining what problems the proposed form of government change

would solve and stated that she had not heard those reasons. She stated

that the commission lacked sufficient time to fully explore the issue and

that both forms of government could function effectively, as many cities

demonstrated. She stated that she had not heard why Gahanna

specifically needed the change and asked what problem the proposal

sought to solve. Vice Chair Wester stated that, because those answers

remained unclear, she supported striking the proposal. She added that

several commissioners, including Mr. Hill, Commissioner Belisle, and

herself, had asked follow-up questions and stated that, if compelling

reasons existed, the commission likely would have heard them by that

point. Vice Chair Wester then addressed Commissioner Reynolds’

earlier comments and stated that Commissioner Belisle had summarized

her position accurately. She clarified that her proposal concerning an

elected or hired city attorney did not involve a change in the form of

government. She stated that City Attorney Tamilarasan had asked the

commission to table that discussion until she could participate, and Vice

Chair Wester stated that she respected that request. She explained that

the proposal arose organically from comments made during the previous

meeting regarding the pool of candidates available for highly skilled

positions such as city attorney. She stated that her proposal focused on

the process for selecting the individual rather than changing the

governmental structure itself.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that the clarification helped her

understand the issue because she initially interpreted the proposal as

involving a fully appointed position. She stated that, while the current

system might not present problems now, she could envision future

concerns. She expressed concern about future leadership and the

possibility of individuals entering office with established teams and

influence.

Vice Chair Wester clarified that her comments specifically addressed the

city attorney position.

Commissioner Reynolds responded that she referred more generally to

any long-term position. She acknowledged that she might not fully

understand all aspects of the issue and welcomed further explanation.

She asked whether an appointed city attorney would be selected by the

Mayor or by City Council and stated that she wanted clarity regarding

how any proposed language would function.

Vice Chair Wester stated that Commissioner Belisle had previously

added a helpful comparison column to the discussion materials. She

explained that 11 of the 14 cities in Franklin County employed an

appointed or hired city attorney rather than an elected one and noted that

Gahanna, Reynoldsburg, and Whitehall represented the only suburbs that

still elected the position. Vice Chair Wester further stated that the

charters of those cities varied in how they appointed the city attorney.

Some allowed the city manager to appoint the position, while others

required appointment by the mayor or city manager with confirmation by

council. Vice Chair Wester stated that she personally preferred a

collaborative process involving both council and the mayor because the

city attorney worked closely with both branches of government and with

the public. She stated that a vetting process involving both entities would

create a beneficial outcome.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that the clarification helped her better

understand the proposal because she previously interpreted it as

involving sole appointment authority. She stated that she appreciated the

collaborative approach.

Vice Chair Wester stated that some communities did use sole

appointment authority but reiterated that she preferred collaboration

between council and the mayor.

Commissioner Reynolds asked whether the commission would need to

draft the proposed language itself.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she had extensive thoughts on the

issue but wanted to respect the decision to table the discussion until City

Attorney Tamilarasan returned. She stated that she would reserve her

comments until that time.

Commissioner Hill stated that Commissioner Reynolds also had raised

the separate issue of term limits. He stated that term limits could and

should receive consideration but represented a separate issue from the

discussion concerning the city attorney position.

Commissioner Reynolds agreed and referenced an email she had sent

to the commission during her absence from the previous meeting. She

stated that, if the commission struck the proposal, she would support

introducing a proposal for four-year term limits, particularly if the strategic

plan became part of the charter. She stated that she wanted to ensure

future leadership would operate from a strong position and that future

candidates would have opportunities to present their own visions for the

city.

Commissioner Mularski asked whether the commission had returned to

discussion of Commissioner Belisle’s motion.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he wanted to note that Commissioner

Reynolds’ earlier comments carried weight because discussions

concerning the form of government, city manager, and city attorney

positions closely intertwined. He explained that the current strong mayor

system included an elected mayor, elected city attorney, and elected city

council, all of which served as checks and balances on each other. He

contrasted that structure with a city manager form of government, where a

city manager and city attorney typically served through appointment

processes involving council oversight. Chair Barnhardt stated that

replacing an elected city attorney with an appointed one would introduce

an element of city manager accountability into a mayoral system and

remove one of the intended checks and balances. He questioned how

disagreements between the mayor and council could create gridlock

over appointing a city attorney and stated that such a process could

make the position more political because competing branches of

government might seek influence over the appointment. He expressed

concern that perceptions could arise regarding whether a city attorney

aligned too closely with either the mayor or council. Chair Barnhardt

stated that those possibilities represented unintended consequences

that the commission needed to consider carefully. Chair Barnhardt further

noted that Gahanna, Whitehall, and Reynoldsburg all maintained elected

city attorneys within strong mayor forms of government, while other

communities in central Ohio operated under mayor-administrator or

council-manager systems with different accountability structures. He

reiterated that the city attorney discussion intertwined closely with

broader questions about governmental structure and distribution of

power. Chair Barnhardt referenced comments from Councilmember

Schnetzer during an earlier meeting, stating that Councilmember

Schnetzer had cautioned the commission against altering the mayoral

system because the structure had been intentionally designed. Chair

Barnhardt stated that the commission needed to identify the actual

problems it sought to solve and carefully consider any unintended

consequences. He then stated that he preferred to table both the city

manager and city attorney discussions until the following week when City

Attorney Tamilarasan returned.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she strongly disagreed with Chair

Barnhardt’s comments and stated that the commission could continue

the discussion the following week. She reiterated that most strong mayor

governments in Franklin County employed appointed or hired city

attorneys rather than elected ones. She stated that she believed the

hiring and appointment process emphasized qualifications, skill sets,

and experience, while elections did not always focus on professional

legal credentials. Vice Chair Wester stated that, in her view, the proposal

would not change the function of the office itself but only the method of

selecting the individual.

Chair Barnhardt stated that, despite the pending motion, he wanted to

table the city manager and city attorney discussions until the following

week.

Commissioner Mularski called for the question. Chair Barnhardt stated

that the commission would proceed to vote on Commissioner Belisle’s

motion.

Clerk VanMeter clarified that the motion concerned striking CRC 027.

A motion was made by Belisle, seconded by Mularski, to strike CRC 027 (Article

III - Form of Government). The motion carried by the following vote:

4 - Hill, Maxwell, Mularski and Wester

3 - Barnhardt, Belisle and Reynolds

Yes:

No:

Chair Barnhardt asked whether the commission had any additional items

that required further education or raised additional questions. He then

announced that the previous motion had passed and that the commission

had struck the form of government discussion.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she had another motion to strike. She

moved to strike CRC 004 regarding the strategic plan. Commissioner

Belisle explained that, after further review and considering comments

received from members of the public, she questioned whether

embedding a strategic plan into the charter fell within the purview of the

commission. She stated that previous discussion had raised concerns

that such a provision would prove too restrictive. She also questioned

who would determine whether the city would pay for a strategic plan and

stated that those matters did not fall within the commission’s authority.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she believed the commission should

consider striking the proposal and asked whether the commission could

open discussion on the matter.

Chair Barnhardt responded that, at that stage of the process, the

purpose of striking proposals centered more on whether the commission

possessed sufficient education, context, or time to discuss the item. He

stated that he did not believe it was appropriate to strike the proposal at

that point because the commission could still discuss and prioritize it,

even if members ultimately chose not to advance it. Chair Barnhardt

stated that, in his opinion, the proposal had not reached the threshold for

removal during the educational review phase.

Vice Chair Wester asked for clarification on whether the commission

should suggest striking proposals only because of insufficient information

at that point in the process. Chair Barnhardt confirmed that

understanding.

Commissioner Belisle acknowledged that she had moved back a step in

the process and apologized. She then asked whether the commission

could still determine whether other members felt the same way because

the motion had already been made.

Chair Barnhardt noted that the motion had not yet received a second and

asked whether any commissioner wished to second it.

Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion.

Clerk VanMeter clarified that the motion concerned striking CRC 004.

A motion was made by Belisle, seconded by Reynolds, to strike CRC 004

(Article III - Mayor: Strategic Plan Embedding). The motion failed by the

following vote:

2 - Belisle and Reynolds

Yes:

5 - Barnhardt, Hill, Maxwell, Mularski and Wester

No:

Chair Barnhardt announced that the motion had failed. He then asked

whether the commission had any additional items that required further

education, time, capacity, or information before advancing.

Vice Chair Wester raised CRC 025 regarding the ward composition

proposal. She stated that she believed someone intended to provide

additional information on the matter, despite Councilmember Weaver

already having submitted information. Vice Chair Wester stated that she

may have misunderstood earlier discussion but recalled believing that

Clerk VanMeter planned to contact someone for additional information.

Clerk VanMeter stated that he did not recall that. Vice Chair Wester

acknowledged that she might have remembered incorrectly and stated

that Councilmember Weaver had already provided information from the

Franklin County Board of Elections. She stated that she did not believe

the commission possessed sufficient information to determine whether

the proposal represented a valid change. Vice Chair Wester explained

that the information provided did not adequately demonstrate how

changing ward boundaries would affect the city moving forward. She

stated that she did not feel comfortable advancing the proposal and

moved to strike CRC 025.

Commissioner Maxwell seconded the motion.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he agreed with Vice Chair Wester’s

concerns. He explained that he had requested information showing what

the actual ward changes and maps would look like and considered that

information important before recommending such a change. Chair

Barnhardt stated that, based on the current stage of the process, he

agreed with the motion to strike. He then invited additional comments.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she believed the commission already

had enough information because previous discussion suggested that the

language change would not significantly alter ward boundaries. She

stated that she believed the proposal should move into the prioritization

phase because the commission had reviewed all available data.

Commissioner Belisle also recalled that the commission had appeared

divided on the issue during the previous meeting.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she found the proposal difficult to

understand and stated that she could not identify a logical reason for

altering ward boundaries. She reiterated that she remained open to

hearing additional reasoning but personally supported striking the

proposal.

Commissioner Reynolds asked a clarifying question regarding whether

the proposal involved physically moving ward boundaries or simply

creating more inclusive representation for residents within the

designated areas.

Commissioner Mularski responded that the proposal involved redrawing

the map. He stated that his concern centered on situations in which

wards could contain equal populations but significantly different numbers

of registered voters, potentially giving a smaller group of voters

disproportionate influence. Commissioner Mularski stated that, without

understanding how those changes would function, he viewed the

proposal as uncertain.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the available data suggested that the shifts

might not prove substantial, but he remained uncomfortable advancing

the proposal without understanding the full implications. He stated that

the proposal carried potential electoral consequences and that he lacked

sufficient information to feel comfortable advancing it into prioritization or

recommending charter language.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that all residents already received

representation within their wards regardless of voter registration status.

He stated that representation should continue to function that way.

Commissioner Hill responded that representation depended on one’s

definition of the term. He explained that, although all residents lived within

a ward, voting ultimately determined outcomes. He stated that non-voters

could still experience decisions made by voters within the ward and

believed that Councilmember Weaver’s proposal sought to address that

distinction in representation.

Vice Chair Wester responded that she viewed the issue differently. She

explained that the current ward system relied on registered voter data

and stated that the city did not use ward boundaries in day-to-day

municipal operations or service delivery. She stated that wards primarily

existed for election administration purposes. Vice Chair Wester

acknowledged that she remained sensitive to issues of diversity and

inclusion within Gahanna and considered those qualities among the city’s

greatest strengths. However, she stated that the proposal would shift

ward boundaries based on population data derived from the six-year-old

census, which concerned her. She reiterated that she did not believe the

proposal would improve representation under the city’s current

governmental structure.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that she questioned whether the

commission possessed enough information to strike the proposal

outright. She expressed concern that the commission would never

possess completely current population data because census data always

lagged behind current conditions. Commissioner Reynolds suggested

that the issue might warrant public consideration because some

residents who could not vote might still view the matter as important. She

stated that she could understand concerns raised during earlier

discussion regarding neighbors and community members who lacked

voting rights but still desired representation in local decisions.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that she wanted additional time to

consider the proposal from those perspectives.

Vice Chair Wester reiterated that she still could not identify the practical

purpose or benefit of the proposal.

Commissioner Reynolds responded that Councilmember Weaver had

presented the issue as a community initiative intended to provide

broader inclusion.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she still did not follow the reasoning behind

the proposal. She reiterated that residents already had access to

representation regardless of voter registration status and stated that

ward boundaries did not affect the city’s operational responsiveness.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she still did not understand what problem

the proposal sought to solve and reiterated her support for striking it.

Chair Barnhardt stated that, from a values perspective, he strongly

supported the underlying representation argument because he believed

residents should feel included in their community and electoral

processes. However, he stated that the commission’s responsibility

extended beyond evaluating values and required careful consideration of

operational impacts and implementation issues. Chair Barnhardt

explained that the commission possessed access to staff resources and

expertise that average voters did not. He stated that he lacked sufficient

understanding of the proposal’s tactical implications and therefore did

not feel comfortable advancing it without additional information. Chair

Barnhardt characterized that caution as responsible deliberation by the

commission.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that she personally wanted additional

time to review Councilmember Weaver’s original materials and conduct

further research.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether Commissioner Reynolds wanted

the commission to table the matter until the following week so that

members could continue reviewing it because the issue appeared

contentious.

Vice Chair Wester responded that she believed the proposal remained

appropriate for a vote to strike.

Chair Barnhardt stated that, because differing opinions remained and the

commission had another special meeting scheduled for the following

week, he would support tabling the matter for one week. He requested

that staff conduct additional investigation into who drew the ward maps

and what practical implications the proposed changes would create.

Vice Chair Wester stated that City Council handled ward boundaries.

Commissioner Mularski stated that the purpose of wards involved

maintaining equal numbers of voters in each ward so that one ward

would not overpower another through voter imbalance. He stated that, if

the city maintained wards, they should continue to rely on voter numbers.

Vice Chair Wester agreed.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that residents remained unregistered for

many different reasons, including personal choice. He stated that voters

ultimately made governmental decisions and acknowledged that some

individuals unfortunately became overlooked in the process.

Commissioner Reynolds reiterated that she wanted to revisit

Councilmember Weaver’s original document and conduct additional

review.

Chair Barnhardt stated that, based on the discussion, the commission

might ultimately determine that the proposal warranted prioritization.

Chair Barnhardt acknowledged the second and directed Clerk VanMeter

to call the roll on the motion to strike CRC 025.

A motion was made by Wester, seconded by Maxwell, to strike CRC 025 (Article

IV - Council: Ward Composition Apportionment Basis). The motion failed by the

following vote:

3 - Maxwell, Mularski and Wester

Yes:

No:

4 - Barnhardt, Belisle, Hill and Reynolds

Chair Barnhardt stated that the motion to strike CRC 025 had failed by a

vote of four no and three yes. He stated that the proposal would remain

under consideration.

Vice Chair Wester stated that, as discussion continued, she wanted the

commission to identify the specific problem the proposal sought to solve.

She stated that, once the commission identified the issue, members

could seek data to support any proposed change. Vice Chair Wester

further stated that she did not believe the charter review process existed

to evaluate City Council’s ability to represent residents.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the proposal had survived the educational

threshold review and would therefore move into the prioritization phase,

where the commission could continue discussion.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she could email President Weaver to

ask whether he intended census data to determine population figures or

whether he had another suggested methodology that he considered

more accurate.

Scoring Mechanics Discussion

Chair Barnhardt then asked whether the commission had any remaining

educational items requiring discussion. Hearing none, he proposed that

the commission begin discussing the draft ballot measures individually

and proceed through additional deliberation and scoring.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether commissioners would complete

scoring individually during the meeting. Chair Barnhardt stated that he

intended for the commission to proceed one proposal at a time, discuss

each measure, and continue deliberation from the beginning of the list.

Before the commission began scoring discussion, Vice Chair Wester

raised CRC 009 concerning the organizational meeting proposal

submitted by Councilmember Bowers. She stated that she believed City

Attorney Tamilarasan previously had explained that delaying the

swearing-in of elected officials until as late as January 7 could create

issues because the charter currently allowed flexibility through January 2.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she understood the proposal could create

complications if events requiring official action occurred before the

swearing-in of the mayor, city attorney, or councilmembers because

officials could not fulfill duties before taking the oath of office. She stated

that she felt comfortable eliminating that proposal based on the

information the commission already possessed.

Commissioner Belisle noted that Vice Chair Wester had moved

backward in the process, similar to her own earlier motion.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the commission could address those details

during deliberation on individual ballot measures. He explained that the

commission could remove individual components from broader ballot

measures while still scoring the remainder of the proposal.

Commissioner Belisle suggested that, because the commission had just

begun deliberation, members should discuss all proposals before

completing any scoring. She stated that commissioners might benefit

from hearing all discussion and reflecting on the proposals before

assigning scores.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he liked the suggestion and agreed that

commissioners should have time to digest the discussions before

completing scores.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she preferred additional time to think

through the issues carefully rather than rushing to complete scoring

during the meeting.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the eventual scoring votes would become

part of the public record. He reminded commissioners that the following

week’s special meeting would require completion of scoring and

prioritization. Chair Barnhardt also stated that commissioners unable to

attend the next meeting would need to submit scores in advance so staff

could incorporate them into the process and preserve them as part of the

public record.

Commissioner Belisle suggested that all commissioners should submit

scores electronically by the same deadline to avoid concerns about

changes in scoring by those attending the meeting in person.

Chair Barnhardt stated that submitting all scores in advance also would

improve administrative efficiency because Clerk VanMeter would not

need to tally scores live during the meeting. He stated that aggregated

scores would allow the commission to review priorities more effectively

during deliberation.

Commissioner Hill asked Clerk VanMeter whether commissioners

should submit scores by Monday at noon or another specific deadline.

Clerk VanMeter stated that Monday at noon would work well and noted

that agenda materials for the special meeting needed public release at

least 48 hours in advance.

Chair Barnhardt clarified that all commissioners should submit their

scoring in advance. He stated that the commission needed to provide

City Attorney Tamilarasan with sufficient information by the conclusion of

the next Thursday meeting so she could begin drafting any

recommended charter language. Chair Barnhardt instructed

commissioners unable to attend the special meeting to submit all scores

in advance and additionally provide their top five or six preferred

proposals so those recommendations could inform deliberations.

Commissioner Belisle reiterated that simultaneous submission would

help avoid concerns about commissioners influencing outcomes during

the meeting itself. Chair Barnhardt agreed and again emphasized the

administrative advantages of advance submission and score

aggregation.

Commissioner Hill again confirmed the proposed submission deadline.

Clerk VanMeter reiterated that Monday at noon would provide sufficient

time to prepare materials.

Vice Chair Wester asked whether commissioners should organize

submissions by category. Chair Barnhardt explained that commissioners

should complete scorecards organized by draft ballot measure. He

stated that the complete scorecards, rather than only aggregate scores,

needed preservation as part of the public record because the scoring

process constituted part of the commission’s deliberative process.

Commissioner Belisle confirmed that commissioners would submit a

PDF containing scores for all remaining ballot measures. Chair

Barnhardt confirmed that understanding and offered to create fillable

PDF scorecards for each measure. He stated that the forms would

automatically total scores and promised to distribute them to

commissioners the following day.

Commissioner Reynolds asked whether the commission would discuss

the aggregated scores during the following Thursday meeting after

submitting them by Monday at noon. Chair Barnhardt confirmed that the

commission would review aggregated scores for all draft ballot

measures during the special meeting. He stated that the commission

would discuss which proposals scored highly or poorly and determine

which recommendations to advance. He also reiterated that absent

commissioners could submit written recommendations in advance for

inclusion in deliberations.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether the commission planned to

establish a minimum score threshold that would automatically eliminate

proposals. Chair Barnhardt responded that low scores would indicate

recommendations not to advance proposals at that time, but he

emphasized that the scoring matrix would remain only a guide. He stated

that the scoring process would help identify which proposals rose to the

top as priorities for the commission. Chair Barnhardt then asked whether

commissioners felt comfortable with the proposed process and

reiterated the Monday noon submission deadline.

Commissioner Mularski stated that he already had completed his scoring

and asked whether he needed to use the fillable PDF form afterward.

Chair Barnhardt responded that Commissioner Mularski could simply

provide his completed scoring materials to Clerk VanMeter at the end of

the meeting. Chair Barnhardt reiterated that all other commissioners

would submit their scorecards by Monday at noon and again stated that

he would distribute fillable PDF forms for those who wished to use them.

Prioritization Discussion

Draft Ballot Measure One - (Article III - Mayor) An Amendment to

Reform Gahanna’s Non-Partisan Primary Election Process

Chair Barnhardt began discussion on the draft ballot measures by

starting with Article Three, Mayor, Draft Ballot Measure One, which

proposed an amendment to reform Gahanna’s nonpartisan primary

election process. He noted that Commissioner Mularski had submitted

the proposal as CRC 001 and invited him to explain the rationale behind

it.

Commissioner Mularski stated that the city previously faced a situation in

which only two candidates filed for mayor, yet the city still conducted a

primary election even though both candidates automatically advanced to

the general election. He stated that the primary election cost the city

more than $300,000 and served little practical purpose because the

outcome already had been determined. Commissioner Mularski stated

that, if two or fewer candidates filed for mayor, both candidates should

automatically advance to the general election without conducting a

primary.

Chair Barnhardt asked whether the proposed language also aligned with

provisions in the Ohio Revised Code regarding primary elections.

Commissioner Mularski confirmed that the language he submitted came

directly from the Ohio Revised Code.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the proposed language therefore reflected a

best-practice approach for handling such situations and observed that

the current charter language did not align with that standard.

Commissioner Mularski agreed. Chair Barnhardt then invited comments,

suggestions, or concerns from the commission.

Vice Chair Wester stated that the proposal appeared straightforward

and asked for clarification that, if more than two candidates filed for

mayor, the city still would conduct a primary election. Chair Barnhardt

confirmed that understanding. He further stated that the proposal made

sense from both a cost-savings and efficiency perspective and aligned

with recognized best practices. Chair Barnhardt added that he personally

viewed it as a strong ballot measure.

Draft Ballot Measure Two - (Article III - Mayor) An Amendment to

Require a Strategic Plan for the City of Gahanna and to Provide for

Regular Review and Update

Chair Barnhardt continued discussion with Draft Ballot Measure Two

under Article Three, Mayor, which proposed an amendment requiring a

strategic plan for the City of Gahanna and providing for regular review

and updates. He stated that the city administration had suggested the

proposal as a means of embedding strategic planning requirements into

the mayor’s executive duties while ensuring that City Council and the

public would have a formal opportunity to review and comment on the

city’s long-term direction. Chair Barnhardt then opened the floor for

discussion.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she had taken note of comments from

individuals who expressed concern that integrating a strategic plan into

the city charter could become overly restrictive. She stated that she

initially agreed with Chair Barnhardt that carefully crafted language could

avoid unnecessary limitations. However, after further consideration,

Commissioner Belisle stated that, if the charter referenced a strategic

plan at all, she preferred language that did not mandate the existence of

a strategic plan. She suggested language stating that, if a strategic plan

existed or had been implemented, the mayor would conduct an annual

review or otherwise follow the plan. Commissioner Belisle stated that

such wording would alleviate concerns about requiring the city to

maintain a strategic plan at all times while still recognizing its importance.

She further stated that the approach would preserve flexibility while

demonstrating that Gahanna valued strategic planning.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she considered Commissioner Belisle’s

suggestion thoughtful and practical. She explained that she generally

viewed the charter as a foundational document that should avoid

mandating unnecessary or overly specific requirements. Vice Chair

Wester stated that she supported language acknowledging a strategic

plan if one existed because the city already devoted significant time and

resources to strategic planning efforts. She further stated that she

believed the charter could recognize the strategic plan as a guiding

document without imposing inflexible requirements. Vice Chair Wester

stated that she viewed the suggestion as a reasonable compromise that

balanced flexibility with recognition of the strategic plan’s importance.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she believed everyone respected the

strategic plan itself and recognized its value to the city. She reiterated

that her primary concern involved preserving flexibility and avoiding

language that would unnecessarily restrict future decision-making.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that she shared concerns previously

expressed by Ms. Pollyea, Councilmember Bowers, and Councilmember

Weaver that the issue could instead be addressed through ordinance.

She stated that she hesitated to include such language in the charter

itself. Commissioner Reynolds also referenced the commission’s earlier

discussion about saving public funds and questioned whether

embedding strategic planning requirements into the charter might create

additional expenses or limitations for the city. She stated that she wanted

to ensure the charter avoided imposing unnecessary restrictions that City

Council could otherwise address through ordinance.

Commissioner Belisle stated that those concerns originally motivated her

earlier motion to strike the proposal because she questioned whether the

matter properly fell within the commission’s purview. However, after

discussion, she stated that she now preferred maintaining flexibility within

any potential charter language rather than eliminating the concept

entirely.

Vice Chair Wester noted that the current charter already required a State

of the City reporting mechanism and explained that the proposed

amendment would add a broader strategic and long-term planning

component.

Commissioner Hill referenced comments from Councilmember

Schnetzer’s earlier presentation, during which Councilmember Schnetzer

cautioned against obligating the mayor through the charter without

ensuring the resources necessary to fulfill those obligations.

Commissioner Hill stated that he believed the commission generally

agreed that the charter should avoid creating restrictive requirements.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he recognized his perspective differed

somewhat from the group on the proposal. He stated that, based on his

professional experience in local government, he considered strategic

planning an important tool for operationalizing and institutionalizing

long-term vision within a community. Chair Barnhardt stated that he did

not believe Gahanna historically had embraced that type of long-term

strategic approach. He explained that requiring a strategic plan would

integrate long-term thinking into the city’s organizational culture and

decision-making processes. Chair Barnhardt further stated that he

believed the administration’s draft language already provided flexibility.

He noted that City Council retained authority over appropriations and

funding decisions, meaning that strategic planning would not

automatically create recurring large expenses. He explained that properly

implemented strategic plans typically operated on five- to ten-year

timelines and could adapt to changing circumstances as necessary.

Chair Barnhardt referenced examples of communities updating strategic

plans after the Intel development announcement in order to position

themselves for economic opportunities. He stated that strategic planning

encouraged continuity, annual conversations between the mayor and

council, and ongoing review of community goals and implementation

progress. Chair Barnhardt further stated that, based on his service on the

steering committee for the “Our Gahanna” strategic plan, he viewed the

proposal as a positive long-term investment in the city’s future.

Commissioner Reynolds acknowledged that she had participated in the

strategic planning process and described it as valuable. However, she

reiterated that she still believed the city could accomplish those goals

through ordinance rather than through charter language.

Chair Barnhardt responded that embedding the concept in the charter

elevated the importance of strategic planning and institutionalized the

city’s commitment to maintaining a shared long-term vision.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she believed all commissioners had

raised valid points and that she did not strongly disagree with anyone’s

position. She observed that the charter functioned as a foundational

governing document and stated that, in some respects, a strategic

planning requirement made more sense in the charter than the existing

State of the City reporting requirement. Vice Chair Wester also

referenced earlier language suggestions circulated by Chair Barnhardt

and asked whether commissioners would score the overall concept or

specific proposed wording because the language itself could vary

significantly.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he believed Director Vollmer had proposed

revised language that provided additional flexibility and reduced

prescriptive timelines. He stated that annual reporting requirements

naturally would encourage ongoing discussion and updates as needed.

Commissioner Belisle clarified that her question concerned whether

commissioners would score the broad concept itself or evaluate the

specific wording currently under discussion. Chair Barnhardt responded

that his understanding of the process involved the City Attorney drafting

language based on the tenor of the commission’s discussions and

recommendations. He stated that, if the proposal advanced, draft

language would return to the commission for further review and

refinement. Commissioner Belisle confirmed that commissioners

therefore would score the overall concept rather than specific charter

wording. Chair Barnhardt agreed and stated that the commission had not

yet reached the stage of drafting precise code language.

Commissioner Maxwell summarized the discussion by stating that

commissioners effectively would score whether the city should maintain a

strategic planning requirement without specifying exact timelines or

procedures. Chair Barnhardt confirmed that understanding.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that wording would remain critically

important for this proposal. Chair Barnhardt agreed and stated that the

City Attorney’s office likely would incorporate the commission’s

discussions and multiple draft language suggestions into any future

proposal language.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she could envision future charter

review commissions questioning why such language appeared in the

charter decades later, particularly if terminology or planning practices

evolved over time. Chair Barnhardt responded humorously that he

expected to remain available in 25 years if future commissions wished to

contact him about the matter. Commissioner Belisle reiterated that future

generations might ultimately decide to remove such language from the

charter.

Chair Barnhardt acknowledged that every community approached

governance differently and stated that such a proposal might not work

everywhere. However, he reiterated that he believed the proposal would

benefit Gahanna and align with the direction the city sought to pursue

organizationally and strategically.

Commissioner Hill stated that he wanted to build upon Commissioner

Belisle’s comments and revisit Vice Chair Wester’s earlier analytical

framework by asking what specific problem the commission sought to

solve through charter language rather than through ordinary governmental

action. He clarified that he did not oppose strategic planning itself but

wanted the commission to consider carefully whether the charter

represented the appropriate vehicle for the requirement. Chair Barnhardt

thanked Commissioner Hill for raising that perspective and stated that

the commission should continue using that lens throughout deliberations

and scoring discussions. He stated that identifying the problems the

commission sought to solve represented an important part of thoughtful

deliberation.

Draft Ballot Measure Three - (Article III - Mayor) An Amendment to

Align Residency and Conflict of Interest Requirements Across Elected

Offices

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to Draft Ballot Measure Three, an

amendment to align residency and conflict-of-interest requirements

across elected offices. He clarified that the proposal combined CRC

002, CRC 003, and CRC 026 and acknowledged that the organization of

the materials caused some confusion.

Commissioner Belisle stated that no other nearby city imposed a prior

residency duration requirement on elected city attorneys. She clarified

that other communities required residency at the time of filing and

throughout the term of office, but Gahanna remained the only city with an

extended residency requirement before filing. Commissioner Belisle

stated that Gahanna therefore represented a significant outlier in that

regard.

Vice Chair Wester responded that many surrounding communities

appointed or hired city attorneys rather than electing them. She

questioned whether Reynoldsburg maintained a residency requirement

for its elected city attorney but stated that she could not recall the exact

details.

Chair Barnhardt stated that his research into approximately ten

communities showed that Reynoldsburg and Whitehall both elected city

attorneys and neither city imposed a prior residency duration

requirement. He stated that Gahanna appeared to be the only community

with that requirement.

Commissioner Belisle clarified that she referred specifically to a required

period of residency before filing for office rather than residency during the

term itself.

Vice Chair Wester stated that, if the commission retained an elected city

attorney, she believed all three elected offices should maintain consistent

residency requirements. She stated that the mayor currently faced a

two-year residency requirement while City Council members faced a

shorter requirement and city attorneys only needed to qualify as electors

at the time of filing. Vice Chair Wester also referenced political

appointment language and other inconsistent provisions within the city

attorney section and stated that the commission should streamline those

provisions to match the mayoral and council sections.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the intent of the proposal involved removing

political language and creating consistency across the elected offices.

Vice Chair Wester explained that she personally preferred a two-year

residency requirement for all elected offices because she believed

elected officials should possess strong familiarity with the community.

She stated that many residents had lived in Gahanna for decades and

that a two-year requirement represented a minimal threshold. Vice Chair

Wester added that, if the commission viewed residency requirements as

a deterrent for qualified candidates, she preferred moving toward an

appointed or hired city attorney because appointment would eliminate

the need for residency restrictions.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he would like additional insight regarding why

the city attorney position might require different standards than the mayor

or council positions. He invited Assistant City Attorney Roth or City

Attorney Tamilarasan to provide additional rationale in the future if

necessary.

Commissioner Mularski asked what specific problem the commission

sought to solve by changing the existing residency requirements. He

questioned why the commission needed to alter the differences between

the two-year requirement for mayor and the shorter requirement for

councilmembers. Vice Chair Wester responded that she viewed

consistency itself as the primary objective. She stated that the current

charter established three separate residency standards for the three

elected offices and characterized that inconsistency as unusual.

Chair Barnhardt asked whether the current 15-month residency

requirement for council had originated during the previous charter review

process. Vice Chair Wester confirmed that understanding. Chair

Barnhardt stated that, because voters previously approved the 15-month

requirement for council, he viewed that standard as a logical baseline if

the commission sought consistency between offices. He stated that he

still wanted additional information regarding why the city attorney position

differed but believed standardization based on prior voter-approved

language made sense. Commissioner Mularski jokingly stated that

attorneys wrote the rules, which explained the differences.

Vice Chair Wester clarified that the 15-month requirement effectively

represented one year before the filing deadline plus the additional time

before the election. She stated that most residents did not think in terms

of filing deadlines, but she reiterated that the current system still created

inconsistent standards across elected offices.

Commissioner Belisle disagreed with Vice Chair Wester’s position and

stated that, if the commission sought consistency, she preferred reducing

the residency requirement rather than increasing it. She referenced

comments from President Weaver, who stated that individuals who built

enough community support to win office within a shorter residency period

likely had earned the trust of residents. Commissioner Belisle stated that

successful candidates still would need to perform grassroots work and

establish meaningful community involvement within that timeframe.

Chair Barnhardt agreed that candidates would still need to build support

and become invested in the community even within a 15-month residency

period.

Commissioner Reynolds noted that the commission previously

discussed the city attorney role as a unique and difficult position to fill.

She stated that adding stricter residency requirements for city attorney

could unnecessarily limit the available pool of qualified candidates.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he still needed additional information

regarding why the city attorney position should differ from the mayoral

and council positions. He stated that the commission either should

standardize all three offices or establish a clear rationale for treating the

city attorney differently.

Commissioner Belisle stated that the city attorney position remained

part-time and reiterated that the proposal to remove residency

requirements or potentially move toward an appointed city attorney arose

from a desire to increase the pool of qualified candidates. She stated

that the city should avoid situations in which the city selected candidates

merely because they met residency requirements rather than because

they possessed strong legal qualifications. Commissioner Belisle further

noted that an appointed city attorney would fall outside the consistency

discussion entirely because appointment would eliminate elected office

requirements.

Vice Chair Wester clarified that her personal preference involved moving

to an appointed or hired city attorney because she believed the position

required significant legal expertise and collaboration between the mayor

and council. She stated that appointed positions would reduce concerns

about elections, partisanship, and residency while increasing the pool of

qualified candidates. However, Vice Chair Wester stated that, if the

commission retained elected city attorneys, she still believed residency

qualifications should remain consistent across all elected offices.

Commissioner Belisle stated that no nearby city imposed prior residency

duration requirements on elected city attorneys and suggested that those

communities prioritized qualifications and broader candidate pools over

strict residency standards. Vice Chair Wester responded that she still

viewed consistency among elected offices as the best approach if the

city retained elected city attorneys. She stated that she did not believe

the residency requirement represented the primary obstacle to attracting

qualified candidates and reiterated that consistency across all three

elected offices remained her main objective.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the commission should continue the city

attorney discussion at the following meeting when City Attorney

Tamilarasan returned with additional information.

Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth then addressed the commission. He

stated that he had served as assistant city attorney in all three Franklin

County suburbs that elected city attorneys. He explained that the pool of

candidates for city attorney already remained much smaller because

candidates first had to qualify as licensed attorneys in Ohio. Assistant

City Attorney Roth noted that Gahanna possessed a relatively large

number of attorneys compared to Whitehall, which historically struggled

to identify qualified candidates. He referenced a former Reynoldsburg

city attorney who moved into the city shortly before appointment and later

served successfully for many years. Assistant City Attorney Roth stated

that those practical considerations likely explained why many cities did

not impose extended residency requirements on city attorneys, although

he also expressed support for consistency where appropriate.

Commissioner Belisle referenced concerns raised by an audience

member regarding the city’s ability to quickly replace a city attorney in the

event of a vacancy or emergency. She asked whether Gahanna’s

relatively large attorney population provided enough flexibility to maintain

a strong candidate pool. Assistant City Attorney Roth responded that

Gahanna included many attorneys and judges and therefore possessed

a substantial pool of qualified individuals.

Commissioner Mularski reiterated that requiring candidates to hold legal

credentials already significantly narrowed the field of eligible candidates

for city attorney.

Chair Barnhardt summarized the discussion by stating that, although

Gahanna might possess more attorneys than neighboring communities,

the city attorney pool still remained far smaller than the candidate pools

for mayor or council. He stated that reducing residency restrictions could

improve the city’s ability to attract highly qualified candidates for the

office.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she still believed the mayor should

maintain deeper roots within the community than city council members

because council members might represent more transient wards. She

stated that she preferred maintaining additional flexibility for council

residency requirements and expressed support for the current structure.

Vice Chair Wester responded that she considered the issue relatively

noncontroversial until that evening’s discussion. She reiterated that she

viewed consistency among elected office qualifications as the primary

goal of the proposal. She also noted that additional city attorney reforms

remained under consideration separately from the residency discussion.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he appreciated the discussion because it

challenged some of his own preconceived views. He stated that listening

to the perspectives and reasoning of other commissioners contributed to

a strong deliberative process and thanked the commission for the

thoughtful conversation.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that he appreciated Vice Chair Wester’s

argument for consistency but questioned what actual problem the

proposal sought to solve. He also noted that voters previously approved

the 15-month council residency requirement and stated that he did not

see a strong reason to change it. Chair Barnhardt agreed that the

commission should not change provisions simply because it possessed

the authority to do so.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she would support a 15-month residency

requirement for all three elected offices if the commission preferred that

approach. She reiterated that the proposal’s broader purpose involved

standardizing residency qualifications, conflict prohibitions, and

disqualification standards across all elected offices.

Draft Ballot Measure Four - (Article III - Mayor) An Amendment to

Adopt a Council-Manager Form of Government for the City of

Gahanna.

[Note: The Commission struck the Draft Ballot Measure Four (CRC 027)

proposal from further consideration].

Draft Ballot Measure Five - (Article IV - Council) An Amendment to

Provide for Modernizing City Council Processes and Procedures

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to Draft Ballot Measure Five, which

combined CRC 005, CRC 012, CRC 009, CRC 011, and CRC 021 into

a proposal to modernize City Council processes and procedures. He

explained that the proposal addressed public notice modernization

requirements, scheduling changes, organizational meeting timing, and

due process framework provisions. Chair Barnhardt described the

proposal as a more detailed procedural and cleanup measure and

opened discussion.

Vice Chair Wester stated that the current charter already addressed

public notice requirements and questioned whether the commission

needed to modernize the language. She explained that the charter

currently required conspicuous physical posting of notices and stated that

Councilmember Bowers appeared to propose updating the language to

reflect modern communication practices. Vice Chair Wester further noted

that the mayor previously stated that the city already communicated

public notices through numerous methods, including social media and

the city website. She questioned what specific problem the commission

sought to solve through charter amendments because the city already

utilized modern communication methods in practice.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that she personally appreciated physical

public postings and referenced her own experience seeing notices at

City Hall while registering her children for summer camp. She stated that

she valued physical forms of communication while also recognizing that

many residents relied on digital platforms. Commissioner Reynolds

acknowledged that future communication practices could continue

evolving and stated that she remained uncertain about the best legal

language for balancing traditional and modern notice methods.

Commissioner Belisle stated that the commission previously discussed

preserving the existing conspicuous physical posting requirement while

updating the charter language to acknowledge modern communication

practices as additional methods rather than replacements.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the commission might not even need to

specifically reference modern communication methods if the language

instead created flexibility for future communication practices. He stated

that he appreciated the public notice board located at City Hall and

viewed it as a valuable form of communication. Chair Barnhardt also

noted that the city already used internet-based communication

extensively and suggested that any changes likely should focus on

making the charter language less restrictive rather than replacing

physical notice requirements.

Commissioner Mularski stated that the existing language only

established minimum notice requirements and did not prevent the city

from utilizing additional communication methods.

Chair Barnhardt agreed and stated that the existing charter language

might already function as a minimum standard while still allowing the city

to exceed those requirements through additional outreach. He further

observed that public expectations naturally encouraged the city to

provide broader communication methods.

Vice Chair Wester stated that the current language did not appear

harmful and reiterated that no commissioner seemed interested in

eliminating physical posting requirements. She observed that highly

specific charter language sometimes encouraged unnecessary scrutiny

even when city operations already exceeded those requirements.

Commissioner Mularski cautioned the commission against contributing

to ballot fatigue by placing minor procedural issues before voters

unnecessarily.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that he personally preferred leaving the

current notice language unchanged because the city already possessed

authority to exceed the minimum requirements.

Chair Barnhardt agreed that older charter language did not necessarily

create problems simply because it reflected earlier communication

methods. He then transitioned discussion to the proposal concerning

organizational meeting scheduling. Chair Barnhardt stated that the

commission previously raised concerns regarding shifting the

organizational meeting anchor date because doing so could create

situations in which a newly elected mayor had not yet officially taken

office before important executive actions became necessary. He stated

that the possibility concerned him.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she would not support that proposal

because City Attorney Tamilarasan previously confirmed that it could

create uncertainty regarding the transition of authority. Vice Chair Wester

stated that unexpected situations often arose within municipal

government and that she did not want to create legal ambiguity regarding

executive authority.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he initially considered the proposal

straightforward because it appeared to provide flexibility. However, after

discussing unintended consequences, he became concerned that

delayed swearing-in dates could create situations in which no mayor

officially possessed executive authority. Chair Barnhardt stated that he

personally did not want to risk creating that situation.

Commissioner Belisle noted that City Attorney Tamilarasan previously

explained that officials could take their oaths of office at any time and not

necessarily during the organizational meeting itself. However,

Commissioner Belisle stated that she increasingly focused on what

additional charter revisions the city might need to avoid unintended

consequences from the scheduling changes. She stated that the city

potentially would need to amend provisions regarding terms of office and

continuity of authority to create sufficient safeguards. Commissioner

Belisle stated that she remained undecided on the proposal and

intended to continue reviewing it during prioritization.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she also valued the ceremonial and

community aspects of organizational meetings. She described those

meetings as meaningful occasions during which newly elected officials

took office together and the city celebrated new beginnings. Vice Chair

Wester stated that the city gained little practical benefit from additional

scheduling flexibility because organizational meetings occurred only

once each year. She stated that preserving the current structure avoided

unnecessary legal complications.

Chair Barnhardt then addressed the remaining portions of the draft ballot

measure concerning Robert’s Rules cleanup language and abstention

procedures. He stated that he did not feel strongly about either proposal

but considered them reasonable cleanup measures.

Vice Chair Wester referenced the charter language governing

abstentions and described it as unusually dramatic. She explained that

the current provision required councilmembers to explicitly state the

basis for a conflict of interest when abstaining from votes and included

language suggesting that failure to do so could result in a vacancy of

office. Vice Chair Wester stated that the language appeared highly

specific and severe, although she acknowledged uncertainty regarding

what language represented best practice. She asked whether the

abstention provision originated from Councilmember Bowers or

Councilmember Schnetzer and concluded that it appeared to come from

Councilmember Schnetzer.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the proposal likely represented a reasonable

cleanup effort but questioned whether the issue had ever created

practical problems.

Vice Chair Wester noted that councilmembers occasionally abstained

from votes but stated that she did not know whether any official previously

failed to provide a reason for abstention in the manner described by the

charter language.

Commissioner Mularski stated that he had not observed such an issue

during his 63 years living in Gahanna. Vice Chair Wester joked that

Commissioner Mularski therefore clearly satisfied the residency

requirements.

Chair Barnhardt then asked whether commissioners had any additional

comments on Draft Ballot Measure Five. Hearing none, he moved

discussion to the next item.

Draft Ballot Measure Six - (Article IV - Council) An Amendment to

Adopt Resident-Population Ward Apportionment Language

Chair Barnhardt returned discussion to Draft Ballot Measure Six

concerning ward composition and apportionment based on resident

population language. He asked whether any commissioners had

additional comments regarding the proposal. Hearing no further

discussion, Chair Barnhardt stated that the commission would continue

moving forward with its work.

Draft Ballot Measure Seven - (Article IV - Council) An Amendment to

Establish Term Limits for Council Leadership and Align Voting

Procedure

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to Draft Ballot Measure Seven, an

amendment to establish term limits for council leadership and align

voting procedures. He explained that the proposal would authorize

two-year terms for the council president and vice president positions in

order to provide continuity in leadership roles that supervised the Clerk of

Council and carried significant administrative responsibilities. Chair

Barnhardt then opened the floor for discussion.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she held strong opinions regarding the

proposal and questioned why City Council wanted to make the change.

She explained that the current charter language already allowed council

to elect a president and vice president for any duration, including one

year, two years, or longer. Vice Chair Wester stated that the only

practical change created by the proposal would involve eliminating

annual leadership elections during the organizational meeting. She

stated that she valued the organizational meeting because it allowed

council to reset leadership annually and created accountability among

council members. Vice Chair Wester also noted that governing bodies

sometimes experienced divisions and that annual elections provided an

opportunity for feedback and accountability. Vice Chair Wester further

stated that Councilmember Bowers previously explained that recent

practice involved electing presidents to two-year terms. However, Vice

Chair Wester recalled that, prior to 2022, the presidency changed more

frequently, with leadership terms varying from one year to multiple years.

She stated that the recent two-year practice represented a trend rather

than a requirement and emphasized that the current charter already

allowed council to continue that practice voluntarily. Vice Chair Wester

stated that she opposed changing the charter because she preferred

preserving annual accountability through leadership elections.

Commissioner Mularski stated that he opposed creating more restrictive

charter language and viewed the proposal as unnecessarily limiting

council’s flexibility.

Commissioner Belisle agreed with Vice Chair Wester’s comments and

stated that, although Councilmember Bowers might correctly identify a

current best practice, the charter should not dictate best practices.

Commissioner Belisle stated that preserving flexibility represented the

better approach. Vice Chair Wester stated that Commissioner Belisle

summarized the issue well.

Chair Barnhardt stated that any requirements regarding council president

or vice president term lengths likely belonged in council rules rather than

in the charter itself. He stated that, if the commission advanced anything

related to the proposal, he would prefer removing the charter prescription

entirely and allowing council to establish its own internal rules. However,

Chair Barnhardt also stated that he did not feel strongly enough about the

issue to support placing it on the ballot.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she preferred one-year terms because

City Council also made several other annual appointments, including

appointments to MORPC, school district liaison roles, and Visit

Gahanna. She stated that annual leadership elections allowed council to

provide feedback and evaluate leadership performance regularly. Vice

Chair Wester also referenced comments from President Weaver and

Councilmember Bowers that the leadership positions involved significant

responsibilities and acknowledged that circumstances could change for

councilmembers during their terms. She reiterated that the current charter

language already provided maximum flexibility.

Chair Barnhardt stated that, when uncertain, he generally preferred

leaving existing charter language unchanged.

Draft Ballot Measure Eight - (Article IV - Council) An Amendment to

Modernize Special Meeting Requirements

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to Draft Ballot Measure Eight, an

amendment to modernize special meeting notice requirements. He

explained that the proposal would add the city attorney to the list of

officials authorized to request a special meeting and would update notice

language to reflect current communication practices. Chair Barnhardt

then opened the floor for discussion and noted that the proposal

corresponded to CRC 010.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she generally supported the proposal.

Vice Chair Wester asked Assistant City Attorney Roth whether Gahanna

represented an outlier by not allowing the city attorney to call a special

meeting. She questioned why the charter omitted the city attorney from

that authority. Assistant City Attorney Roth responded that he believed

the city attorney should likely possess that authority but stated that he did

not know how Gahanna compared to other communities.

Chair Barnhardt asked whether situations previously arose in which the

city attorney needed to call a special meeting for matters such as

economic development but lacked the authority to do so directly.

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that, in practice, when such situations

occurred, the city attorney simply contacted a member of council who

then made the request for the special meeting.

Commissioner Mularski stated that, to his knowledge, the issue had

never caused a problem. He explained that the council president, the

mayor, and a majority of council members all already possessed

authority to call special meetings. Commissioner Mularski stated that, if

all those parties refused to call a meeting, then council likely did not want

the meeting held because the meeting ultimately belonged to council

rather than to the city attorney.

Chair Barnhardt responded that, if the city attorney believed a special

meeting became necessary, council leadership or the mayor likely would

cooperate and call the meeting.

Commissioner Belisle stated that many of the commission’s discussions

regarding the city attorney interconnected with the larger conversation

about whether the city attorney should remain elected or become

appointed. She stated that, if the city retained an elected city attorney,

then granting authority to call a special meeting appeared

straightforward. However, she suggested that the issue might require

additional consideration if the city attorney became an appointed

position.

Vice Chair Wester responded that she believed the authority likely should

apply regardless of whether the city attorney remained elected or

became appointed. She stated that the proposal appeared to recognize

the importance of the city attorney role and questioned why the charter

omitted that authority. Vice Chair Wester also agreed that the issue

interconnected with the broader city attorney discussion scheduled for

the following week.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she did not believe extending that

authority to the city attorney would create harm but reiterated that the

proposal remained intertwined with the larger city attorney discussion.

Chair Barnhardt stated that the commission could continue discussing

the issue during the following week’s meeting. He then moved the

commission to the next item of business.

Draft Ballot Measure Nine - (Article IV - Council) An Amendment to

Strengthen Council Oversight of Real Property, Contracts, and

Development Agreements

[Note: The Commission struck the Draft Ballot Measure Nine (CRC 013,

014, 015, 016) proposal from further consideration].

Draft Ballot Measure Ten - (Article V - Administrative Departments) An

Amendment to Restructure the Article V Enumeration of Administrative

Departments

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to Article Five, Administrative

Departments, Draft Ballot Measure Ten, an amendment to restructure the

Article Five enumeration of administrative departments. He explained

that the proposal sought to resolve an internal conflict created by a

previous charter review commission ballot measure that granted the

mayor authority to reorganize departments while the charter still listed

required departments by name. Chair Barnhardt stated that the proposal

would remove the enumerated department list from the charter while

retaining certain higher-level qualifications and requirements, including

provisions related to the Director of Finance and public safety functions.

He then opened the floor for discussion.

Vice Chair Wester asked for clarification regarding the proposal and

stated that she understood it would remove all department names from

the charter. She also recalled discussion suggesting that replacement

language would instead describe general city administrative functions

rather than specific departments. Vice Chair Wester stated that she did

not recall the exact draft language but believed either Director Vollmer or

the mayor previously referenced such language. She further stated that,

for scoring purposes, commissioners effectively would determine

whether they agreed with removing the specific department names from

the charter.

Chair Barnhardt explained that the previous charter review commission

already granted the mayor authority to organize, create, remove, or

restructure departments. However, he stated that the charter still retained

prescriptive language listing required departments such as Public

Service and Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Human Resources.

Chair Barnhardt explained that the proposal therefore would remove

those specific department listings while preserving provisions related to

key functions and qualifications, including requirements for the Director of

Finance and the maintenance of public safety divisions such as police

and fire. Chair Barnhardt referenced draft language stating that

department directors would continue to require expertise and

administrative qualifications relevant to their duties. He also noted that

the charter would continue requiring the Director of Finance, appointed

by the mayor, to serve as the city’s chief financial officer and fulfill all

duties required under Ohio law and the charter, including maintaining

complete information regarding the city’s financial affairs. Chair

Barnhardt summarized the proposal as a continuation of the authority

voters already approved in 2021 by granting the mayor administrative

reorganization powers. He stated that the amendment would complete

the cleanup process by removing contradictory charter language. Chair

Barnhardt further stated that the proposal made sense to him because

the charter currently created inconsistency by granting flexibility while

simultaneously prescribing fixed departments. Hearing no additional

discussion, Chair Barnhardt moved the commission to the next item.

Draft Ballot Measure Eleven - (Article XI - Planning Commission) An

Amendment to Reform Planning Commission Attendance, Removal,

and Member Accountability Standards

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to Draft Ballot Measure Eleven

concerning the Planning Commission. He explained that the proposal

involved amendments related to Planning Commission attendance,

removal procedures, and member accountability standards. Chair

Barnhardt noted that the commission previously struck one component of

the proposal and stated that the remaining items addressed attendance

thresholds, elimination of automatic removals, and revisions to the

definition of just cause for removal. He then opened the floor for

discussion.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she believed the proposal largely involved

cleanup language. Commissioner Reynolds responded that she

understood the proposal as an effort to clarify authority and procedures

because earlier language did not clearly define responsibility for certain

actions.

Vice Chair Wester stated that the charter currently established a fixed

number of absences that could trigger removal from the Planning

Commission. She explained that the cadence of Planning Commission

meetings had changed over time, which altered the practical effect of

those absence limits. Vice Chair Wester stated that the proposal

suggested using percentages rather than fixed numerical thresholds. She

further stated that she strongly opposed including such detailed

attendance rules in the charter and believed the commission itself should

establish attendance and excused absence rules internally.

Chair Barnhardt stated that Director Blackford previously emailed

suggested draft charter revisions that generally delegated attendance

rules and procedures to the Planning Commission itself. He agreed that

the charter should avoid highly prescriptive language in that area.

Assistant City Attorney Roth then addressed the commission and stated

that, during the previous year, the city nearly removed a Planning

Commission member because the member’s employment required

extensive travel. Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that the member

remained highly effective and committed to the commission but could not

consistently attend meetings because of work obligations. He explained

that the city informed the member that the charter language left no

flexibility because the attendance rules appeared explicitly in writing.

Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that the rigid “if this, then that”

structure created unnecessary problems and supported removing that

level of specificity from the charter.

Chair Barnhardt agreed and stated that the highly prescriptive language

failed to provide flexibility as meeting schedules and circumstances

changed over time.

Commissioner Maxwell clarified that the proposal primarily involved

removing restrictive charter language and allowing the commission itself

to establish attendance procedures. He stated that the explanation made

sense to him because such rules belonged at the commission level

rather than in the charter.

Vice Chair Wester added that recent Planning Commission members

experienced serious health challenges and noted that former member

Bobbie Burba had passed away several years earlier. Vice Chair

Wester stated that commission composition and personal circumstances

could vary significantly over time and that overly specific charter language

created difficulties when the city attempted to accommodate those

circumstances through scheduling adjustments.

Commissioner Maxwell reiterated that removing the charter language

would allow the Planning Commission to establish its own attendance

and procedural rules. Chair Barnhardt agreed and stated that, if the

proposal advanced, the draft language likely would remove the existing

provisions and delegate authority to the commission itself.

Commissioner Belisle then addressed CRC 020 concerning the

proposal to define “just cause” for removal. She stated that she hesitated

to define the phrase because “just cause” represented a commonly

understood legal term intended to remain broad and flexible.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she opposed defining the term in the

charter but did support requiring notice and an opportunity to respond

before removal. Vice Chair Wester agreed with Commissioner Belisle’s

position.

Commissioner Maxwell asked for clarification because the proposal

contained several distinct components related to removal procedures.

He wanted to confirm that commissioners could support some portions of

the proposal while rejecting others.

Chair Barnhardt responded that the draft language provided a definition

of “just cause,” including attendance issues, failure to perform duties,

violations of law or ethics requirements, or conduct interfering with

commission operations. He also noted that the draft language required

notice and an opportunity for the member to respond before removal.

Commissioner Mularski clarified that commissioners therefore could

support CRC 017 and CRC 018 while opposing CRC 020. Chair

Barnhardt confirmed that understanding. Commissioner Maxwell stated

that the clarification answered his question.

Commissioner Belisle asked whether commissioners would prioritize

and score each individual component separately rather than treating the

proposal as a single package. Chair Barnhardt explained that the

commission ultimately could provide drafting direction indicating that

certain portions should not appear in the final language. He stated that

the tenor of the commission’s discussion would guide the drafting

process and noted that the commission appeared to share consensus

against including a detailed definition of “just cause.”

Vice Chair Wester stated that the previous discussion concerning

department titles illustrated the risks of overly specific charter language.

She explained that language that once appeared beneficial later created

unintended complications requiring removal. Vice Chair Wester stated

that she viewed the Planning Commission proposal similarly and

preferred avoiding excessive specificity in all three remaining portions of

the measure. She also confirmed her understanding that commissioners

would score the concepts individually and later decide which portions to

retain or discard during drafting.

Chair Barnhardt explained that, if Draft Ballot Measure Eleven ranked

highly during prioritization, the commission then could specify that the

priority involved removing overly prescriptive attendance language while

excluding the proposed “just cause” definition. He stated that the

commission’s direction would guide how staff drafted any proposed

charter amendments.

Commissioner Hill asked whether commissioners needed to submit

written comments or rationale for each proposal when submitting scores.

Chair Barnhardt responded that commissioners only needed to submit

their individual scores by the Monday noon deadline. However, he stated

that commissioners could include narrative explanations for their top five

proposals if they wished to provide additional context regarding their

priorities. Chair Barnhardt clarified that commissioners did not need to

provide written explanations for every proposal unless they wanted to do

so.

Chair Barnhardt then asked whether the commission felt comfortable

moving forward with the proposal discussion. Hearing no additional

comments, he moved to the next item.

Draft Ballot Measure Twelve - (Article XII - Board of Zoning and

Building Appeals) An Amendment to Repeal the Board of Zoning and

Building Appeals and Transfer Its Authority

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to Draft Ballot Measure Twelve

concerning the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. He explained that

the proposal would repeal the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals and

transfer its appeals authority to the Planning Commission. Chair

Barnhardt stated that staff indicated the Board of Zoning and Building

Appeals experienced a significant decline in caseload and met too

infrequently to maintain the expertise necessary to effectively perform its

duties. He further stated that the board had become largely dormant.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she considered the proposal another

straightforward measure. She noted that Director Blackford previously

explained that most cities already handled those functions through their

planning commissions.

Commissioner Maxwell agreed that the proposal appeared

straightforward but stated that the public would need clear explanation

because residents might mistakenly believe the city eliminated their right

to appeal decisions.

Vice Chair Wester agreed and stated that Commissioner Maxwell raised

an important point regarding public understanding of the proposal.

Commissioner Reynolds noted that the Board of Zoning and Building

Appeals also represented a community participation opportunity.

However, she acknowledged that voters ultimately could decide whether

they supported the change.

Vice Chair Wester clarified that the proposal would not eliminate appeal

rights themselves but instead would transfer the process to the Planning

Commission.

Assistant City Attorney Roth explained that the Board of Zoning and

Building Appeals met only about once per year on average. He stated

that many charters historically created such boards as additional layers

of due process, allowing appeals from administrative decisions to

proceed from the Planning Commission to the Board of Zoning and

Building Appeals. However, Assistant City Attorney Roth stated that the

process often resulted in different city entities effectively litigating against

one another despite all representing the City of Gahanna. He referenced

an earlier situation involving himself and Commissioner Mularski in which

one represented the Planning Commission and the other represented the

Board of Zoning and Building Appeals in the same matter. Assistant City

Attorney Roth stated that the arrangement seemed unnecessary and

inefficient because state law already provided judicial appeal procedures

through the courts.

Commissioner Reynolds noted that the Board of Zoning and Building

Appeals also involved compensated positions and compared the

proposal to earlier discussions regarding unnecessary governmental

expenses.

Commissioner Hill asked whether removing the Board of Zoning and

Building Appeals would require corresponding revisions throughout the

charter wherever the board currently appeared. Assistant City Attorney

Roth confirmed that any references to the board elsewhere in the charter

would require revision or removal. Commissioner Hill observed that the

current documentation did not identify all affected references.

Commissioner Mularski agreed that the city would need to address all

such references because otherwise the charter would continue

referencing a board that no longer existed.

Commissioner Reynolds asked whether the city instead could update

existing references to identify the Planning Commission rather than the

Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Commissioner Hill responded

that the current language specifically referenced the Board of Zoning and

Building Appeals as a distinct entity and therefore would require direct

revision to refer specifically to the Planning Commission.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he also identified several references to the

Board of Zoning and Building Appeals in other sections of the charter. He

stated that the proposal would require additional cleanup revisions to

eliminate any remaining references after the board’s removal.

Draft Ballot Measure Thirteen - (Article XXII - Charter Review

Commission) An Amendment to Revise the Frequency and Scope of

Mandatory Charter Review

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to Draft Ballot Measure Thirteen,

concerning CRC 022 and CRC 023 related to the Charter Review

Commission’s convening frequency and scope. He explained that the

proposal sought to amend the mandatory five-year convening cycle for

charter review by either extending the interval, eliminating the automatic

trigger, or requiring council to establish a targeted scope for future

charter review commissions. Chair Barnhardt stated that the issue felt

particularly relevant to the current commission and opened the floor for

discussion.

Commissioner Belisle immediately stated her support for moving to a

ten-year review cycle.

Commissioner Mularski agreed and stated that five years occurred too

frequently.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she struggled with the issue but

ultimately supported a ten-year cycle because other mechanisms already

existed for addressing charter amendments outside the regular review

process. She stated that people often enjoyed proposing changes simply

because they possessed the ability to do so. Commissioner Belisle also

joked that ten years represented enough time for future residents to

decide they wanted to remove the strategic plan language from the

charter.

Chair Barnhardt referenced comments from Councilmember Schnetzer’s

presentation regarding the city charter as a local constitution. He

observed that the Gahanna Charter had undergone many amendments

compared to the relatively limited number of amendments to the United

States Constitution over more than 200 years. Vice Chair Wester noted

that the city charter contained approximately 88 amendments compared

to 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. Chair Barnhardt

stated that the charter represented the city’s foundational governing

document and that amendments should not occur lightly. He stated that

ten-year review cycles appeared very common among other

communities and noted that colleagues serving on charter review

commissions elsewhere expressed surprise that Gahanna conducted

reviews every five years. Chair Barnhardt stated that ten years

represented a widely accepted standard and that he supported the

change.

Commissioner Belisle stated that long-term residents likely would

remember frequent charter amendments and question why the city

repeatedly changed foundational provisions.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she also supported a ten-year cycle. She

explained that the current charter automatically required review every five

years without requiring any specific scope or purpose. Vice Chair

Wester stated that such automatic reviews created temptation to

propose changes simply because the opportunity existed. She stated

that charter changes should remain strategic and foundational rather than

routine. Vice Chair Wester further stated that ten years appeared to

represent the most common review interval among communities. Chair

Barnhardt confirmed that ten years represented the prevailing standard

among communities familiar to him.

Commissioner Maxwell jokingly noted that a ten-year cycle might

effectively require commissioners themselves to serve ten-year terms.

Commissioner Hill referenced Section 22.01 concerning the composition

and term of the Charter Review Commission and indicated that the

charter language governing commissioner terms likely also would require

revision.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he would like to review how other charters

handled commissioner terms under ten-year review cycles. He jokingly

stated that, while he personally might enjoy a ten-year term serving

Gahanna, he was not certain others would feel the same way.

Commissioner Belisle questioned how the other mechanisms for charter

amendments interacted with commission terms. She noted that City

Council and the public already possessed authority to initiate charter

amendments and asked whether those situations would require

appointing entirely new commissioners if they occurred between regular

review cycles. Assistant City Attorney Roth responded that he believed

the public could directly propose charter amendments through petition

rather than convening an entirely new charter review commission.

Chair Barnhardt explained that the charter allowed approximately ten

percent of electors to petition for charter amendments, which then

required council action to place the matter on the ballot. Assistant City

Attorney Roth confirmed that electors could gather signatures and place

charter amendments before voters and stated that City Council

possessed similar authority. He clarified that those procedures did not

require establishing a formal charter review commission conducting

months of meetings. Chair Barnhardt added that City Council technically

could convene a working group to study issues and later advance

proposed amendments to the ballot by council vote if desired.

Vice Chair Wester agreed and stated that, if significant public concerns

arose between review cycles, City Council already possessed authority

to establish a commission or otherwise address the issue. Assistant City

Attorney Roth confirmed that understanding.

Chair Barnhardt stated that charter review commissions primarily

functioned as citizen-led mechanisms for regular review but emphasized

that other amendment avenues remained available whenever necessary.

He reiterated Vice Chair Wester’s earlier point that longer review

intervals likely would encourage more intentional and thoughtful

amendments rather than encouraging changes simply because the

process occurred automatically.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that he supported the ten-year cycle and

joked that, at 80 years old, he recognized the uncertainty of future

participation in another commission ten years later.

Commissioner Hill reiterated that any change to the review cycle also

would require corresponding revisions to charter language governing

commissioner terms.

Commissioner Mularski stated that commissioners should serve only

until voters considered the proposed amendments rather than remaining

appointed for an entire ten-year period.

Clerk VanMeter noted that the charter already required the commission

to reconvene after the election to certify any approved charter

amendments and formally certify the updated charter document. Chair

Barnhardt joked that he looked forward to reconvening for that future

certification meeting and seeing the commission members again.

Chair Barnhardt then asked whether commissioners had any additional

discussion regarding the proposal. Hearing none, he moved to the next

item.

Draft Ballot Measure Fourteen - (Article XXIII - General Provisions) An

Amendment to Update the Charter’s Non-Discrimination Protections

Chair Barnhardt moved discussion to General Provisions, Draft Ballot

Measure Fourteen, which proposed updating the charter’s

non-discrimination protections. He explained that the proposal sought to

align the charter’s non-discrimination language with the city’s existing

Equal Employment Opportunity statement by updating protected

categories to reflect current legal standards and administrative practices.

Chair Barnhardt then opened the floor for discussion.

Commissioner Belisle stated that arguments existed on both sides of the

issue but noted that she generally supported aligning the charter

language with the standards Gahanna already used elsewhere.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that she believed the proposal carried

practical significance because it promoted greater inclusivity. She noted

that local governments increasingly needed to maintain clear written

non-discrimination language and stated that situations could arise in

which charter language became important. Commissioner Reynolds

expressed surprise that the charter language had not already been

updated to match the city’s current policies and practices.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she believed everyone on the commission

agreed that non-discrimination protections represented an important

foundation of the Gahanna community. She described Gahanna as a

diverse and welcoming community and stated that she fully supported

maintaining inclusive and updated non-discrimination language.

However, Vice Chair Wester expressed concern about reports she had

heard regarding federal grant funding and eligibility restrictions tied to

certain words or phrases appearing in foundational government

documents. She stated that she did not know whether updating the

charter language could create funding consequences for the city and

acknowledged uncertainty regarding how to balance inclusivity with those

potential risks.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he raised similar concerns during the

previous meeting. He stated that he found it unfortunate that the

commission needed to evaluate the issue through the lens of funding

eligibility but believed the concern remained realistic enough to consider

carefully. Chair Barnhardt referenced examples of federal grant

applications reportedly being disqualified because of certain language or

terminology. He stated that he would not want the city to lose access to

important infrastructure or project funding because of charter wording.

Although he acknowledged the situation remained hypothetical, Chair

Barnhardt stated that the commission needed to consider the current

environment realistically.

Commissioner Hill stated that the proposal also involved alignment with

the city’s existing Equal Employment Opportunity language and other

operational documents already in place. He stated that Vice President

Jones previously presented the proposal from both a representation and

alignment perspective. Commissioner Hill argued that, if the commission

supported aligning other portions of the charter with existing practices

and terminology, then consistency suggested the commission should

consider alignment in this area as well. He stated that the issue ultimately

involved determining where the people of Gahanna wanted to stand

regarding inclusion and representation.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she wanted to raise two “devil’s

advocate” considerations despite generally supporting the proposal.

First, she questioned what practical and political implications could arise

if the commission advanced the amendment to voters and voters

rejected it. Commissioner Belisle acknowledged that no legal

requirement would force the city to roll back existing Equal Employment

Opportunity protections but questioned whether rejection might create

pressure to reconsider current city policies. Commissioner Belisle also

stated that, when governments expanded protected categories beyond

federal law, they risked creating exclusion by omission because

specifically naming some groups could imply that unlisted groups held

less importance. She stated that the city potentially shifted from simply

complying with federal law to affirmatively identifying which groups

Gahanna valued.

Vice Chair Wester agreed that expanding highly specific language could

create exclusion by omission if additional groups later required inclusion.

However, she reiterated that the values behind the proposal remained

extremely important to the fabric of Gahanna.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he could not recall the exact draft language

proposed but noted that the commission repeatedly discussed avoiding

overly prescriptive charter language throughout the review process. He

questioned whether listing increasingly specific categories in the charter

might require repeated future amendments as additional groups sought

inclusion. Chair Barnhardt further questioned whether the charter

represented the best avenue for expressing those values when the city

already maintained inclusive statements and policies elsewhere that

could adapt more easily over time. He stated that codifying highly

specific categories in the charter appeared inconsistent with the

commission’s broader effort to preserve flexibility and avoid unnecessary

prescriptive language.

Commissioner Maxwell agreed and stated that additional categories and

circumstances likely would continue evolving over time.

Chair Barnhardt added that the city already maintained multiple inclusive

statements and policies that city officials could revise more easily than

the charter itself. He questioned whether codifying the language within

the charter necessarily represented the most effective method for

supporting inclusivity.

Vice Chair Wester asked whether the commission essentially discussed

allowing the charter to defer to more flexible and adaptable city policies,

similar to how the commission previously discussed allowing boards and

commissions to establish their own operational rules.

Chair Barnhardt responded that he questioned whether the charter

should simply defer to federal and state law while allowing city

administrative policies and operational practices to expand beyond

those minimum requirements where appropriate.

Commissioner Mularski stated that the issue reflected an “if it is not

broken, do not fix it” situation. He explained that, because the city already

maintained inclusive Equal Employment Opportunity language and

policies, he did not believe the charter required additional revisions.

Commissioner Hill clarified that the current Equal Employment

Opportunity language already aligned with the State of Ohio’s Equal

Employment Opportunity categories. He stated that the proposal

therefore reflected language the city already followed operationally.

Commissioner Maxwell stated that he initially supported the proposal

strongly but changed his perspective during the discussion. He stated

that he increasingly viewed the proposal as too specific for the charter

and better suited to administrative policy.

Commissioner Belisle stated that all commissioners agreed inclusion

represented an important part of Gahanna’s identity. She compared the

discussion to the earlier strategic planning debate, explaining that she

personally believed inclusivity and representation should remain deeply

integrated into everything the city did. However, Commissioner Belisle

stated that she continued grappling with whether the commission’s role

involved advancing individual preferences or instead preserving flexibility

and minimizing the need for repeated charter revisions.

Commissioner Hill stated that he appreciated the thoughtful discussion

but expressed concern that the conversation focused too heavily on

terminology currently perceived as controversial or politically risky. He

referenced comments from Vice President Jones regarding language

absent from the charter concerning active military service members.

Commissioner Hill stated that commissioners appeared receptive when

that omission came to their attention, which demonstrated that the charter

could evolve thoughtfully when groups lacked representation.

Commissioner Hill further stated that the issue ultimately concerned

whether residents saw themselves represented in the city’s foundational

document. He referenced veterans and active-duty military personnel as

examples of groups who should feel recognized and valued by the

community. Commissioner Hill stated that the proposal did not present

extensive definitions or excessive specificity but instead sought to reflect

the same categories and values the city already recognized

operationally.

Vice Chair Wester asked whether Commissioner Hill’s position centered

on ensuring that individuals reading the charter would feel represented

and included within the community’s foundational document.

Commissioner Hill confirmed that understanding and reiterated that the

issue involved communicating what the City of Gahanna valued and

whom it sought to represent.

Commissioner Belisle stated that concerns about funding eligibility did

not personally persuade her to oppose the proposal, although she

acknowledged that voters might view the issue differently. She suggested

that the commission potentially could add language clarifying that any

listed categories did not represent an exhaustive list of protected groups.

Commissioner Hill stated that he recognized the risks involved but

believed the commission possessed a unique opportunity to thoughtfully

define what values and groups the city wished to recognize. He

emphasized that the commission sought to act in the best interests of

Gahanna residents rather than advancing personal agendas.

Commissioner Hill further stated that the commission should preserve

flexibility while still ensuring that the charter reflected the city’s core

values and commitment to inclusion.

Commissioner Belisle then asked Commissioner Hill what actions the

city should consider if voters rejected the proposal. Commissioner Hill

responded that city attorney previously explained that rejection of the

amendment would not legally require changes to the city’s existing Equal

Employment Opportunity policies or operational practices. However,

Commissioner Hill acknowledged that such a result likely would prompt

additional public discussion and council consideration regarding the

city’s policies and direction.

Commissioner Reynolds stated that she did not believe current political

conditions should prevent the commission from advancing proposals that

reflected community values and inclusion.

Chair Barnhardt then asked whether commissioners had any additional

discussion regarding the proposal. Hearing none, he noted that no further

agenda items remained.

Commissioner Mularski asked whether the commission would address

the elected city attorney issue during the current meeting. Chair

Barnhardt responded that the commission would continue that discussion

during the following week’s meeting and confirmed that commissioners

would not score that proposal during the current session.

Chair Barnhardt then thanked the commission for its extensive and

thoughtful discussion throughout the meeting. He referenced a note in his

meeting script reminding the commission to stay focused in order to

complete the agenda and stated that the commission successfully

accomplished that goal.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS.

2026-0061

Charter Review Commission Correspondence Received via Clerk

None.

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT.

Commissioner Belisle stated that she again wanted to acknowledge the

strength of the commission as a group. She stated that she appreciated

serving with individuals who could engage in robust and thoughtful

discussion.

Vice Chair Wester stated that she agreed with Commissioner Belisle’s

comments and had been thinking the same thing.

Commissioner Hill stated that he would be absent during the following

two meetings, as he previously communicated to the commission. He

stated that he would submit his information in advance so the

commission could consider it during deliberations.

Chair Barnhardt stated that he echoed the comments made by the other

commissioners. He stated that he appreciated the opportunity to engage

in the commission’s discussions because several proposals challenged

opinions that he previously considered fixed and well established. Chair