Celina council eyes changing procedural rules

CELINA - City council members plan to retool their procedural rules following public confusion that arose a few months back when a piece of controversial legislation advanced to subsequent readings without an affirmative vote.

Councilors in late October voted 4-2 against passing on to second reading legislation that would have declared Celina a sanctuary city for the unborn and effectively outlawed abortion in the city.

Nevertheless, the ordinance moved on to a second reading. Councilors at the next meeting again voted 4-2 against the legislation. Yet the ordinance marched on to a final reading, when it was ultimately defeated.

Some people on social media and elsewhere questioned the reason why the legislation continued to move forward even though it was voted down on first reading.

Ohio Revised Code mandates legislation be given three public reading unless the rules are suspended, according to law director George Moore. However, it's been a longstanding practice of city council to vote on legislation on each of the three readings. Regardless of the vote outcome, an ordinance or resolution automatically gets a second and third reading - unless councilors suspend the rules.

Councilors often suspend the rules to ensure city administrators meet pressing financial obligations or deadlines for items such as grant applications. They also have the option of attaching an emergency declaration that allows the legislation to take effective immediately rather than after 30 days.

Looking to bring about some clarity to the voting process, councilors convened a committee of a whole meeting this week to discuss changing council rules.

"I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here. I really think, though, the terminology that we're using is what needs to be changed," councilman June Scott opined, saying the process must be understandable to the public.

Most councilors appeared to favor maintaining a roll-call vote on each reading of legislation so their stances on a position or a proposed action are clearly known to one another and the public.

"There's no vote requirement in the ORC for the first reading or for the second reading. A lot of that is to, I believe, get it out there to the public," Moore pointed out.

ORC, though, gives council latitude in setting its rules, Moore continued. He said councilors could amend their rules to allow for another motion to be made in the event a piece of legislation fails to secure an affirmative vote.

For instance, should an ordinance be voted down on first reading, councilors could then make a second motion to postpone the legislation indefinitely, effectively striking it down for good.

After prolonged and tedious debate, councilors seized on the idea of giving themselves alternatives to exercise should a piece of legislation not garner an affirmative vote - end debate and forward the legislation on to second reading; amend the legislation; refer the legislation to commitee; postpone the legislation and postpone indefinitely, which would be akin to tossing it in the trash.

Moore indicated he would work on a draft of revisions to council rules and pass it along to council.