YOUNGSTOWN Proposal allows executive sessions

Other city boards can meet behind closed doors, but council can't.
By ROGER G. SMITH
CITY HALL REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- There was a day not long ago when city council would go behind closed doors to talk about lots of things.
Problem was, the practice wasn't legal.
On Election Day, council will ask voters to provide that right.
Proponents say the move, if approved, would give council the same rights most other public bodies have and might even save money. There's no known organized opposition.
The charter amendment, one of six on the ballot, would give council and its committees the right to use the state Open Meetings Act.
The state law lets public bodies meet in private -- called an executive session -- to talk about specific items. Among the legally allowed topics are personnel, property issues, litigation and contract negotiations.
Before 1995, Youngstown and other cities with charter forms of government routinely did just that.
The city's charter says all council meetings must be open to the public. Legal interpretations here and in other places, however, were that such cities could use the state's meetings law.
Court ruling
That ended in May 1995.
An open-government advocate in Oxford challenged the practice. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that cities with charters like Youngstown's couldn't use the state law, ending closed sessions.
There was talk then of seeking a charter amendment to legalize closed meetings. A move didn't materialize in the city until now, however.
Law Director John McNally IV asked the city charter review commission this year to consider the move. A few council members expressed concern in the past about the inability to have closed sessions, he said.
Other city boards such as the park and recreation commission and the health district can meet behind closed doors, but council can't. Approving the charter amendment would fix that inequity, McNally said.
"Council wants the same rights as other political subdivisions enjoy," he said.
The review commission recommended that council put the item on the ballot for the same reason, said William Carter, the chairman. There was little debate among commission members, he said.
This is a paraphrase of how voters will see the question at the polls: Shall the city charter be amended to provide that all meetings of the council or committees be public unless an executive session is held for one of the reasons set forth in state law?
Sensitive matters
Councilman Rufus Hudson, D-2nd, has been vocal about needing the state meetings law.
Sensitive topics such as labor contract negotiations and talks with lawyers shouldn't be public, he said.
"We need to be able to talk about those things ... without that as public information," he said.
The city might have saved money if council could have talked together in private about certain issues, Hudson said. He pointed to past labor contracts and the land deal to buy downtown property for a proposed arena.
Council members with direct involvement on a particular topic usually are briefed, he said. That sometimes causes confusion, however, when council needs to make a decision as a whole, he said.
"Sometimes not everybody hears the same thing at the same time," Hudson said.
rgsmith@vindy.com