HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-02 Study Session MIN ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION MINUTES
Monday,February 2,2026
Mayor Graham called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
Council Present: Mayor Graham, Councilors Bloom, DuQuenne, Hansen, Kaplan,and Sherrell. Dahle
appeared via Zoom.
Council Absent:
Staff Present:
Sabrina Cotta City Manager
Alissa Kolodzinski City Recorder
Carmel Zarhan Assistant City Manager
1. Call to Order
11. Reports and Presentations
a. Potential Charter Updates
Cotta presented two potential charter updates for Council's consideration in response to Council
direction to bring charter and ordinance administrative changes forward:
1) Aligning ordinance noticing requirements with Oregon state law; and,
2) Clarifying residency requirements for elected officials.
Regarding ordinance noticing requirements,the current charter language requires three physical
copies of ordinances to be available to the public, posted at City Hall,as well as published in a
newspaper of general circulation.This is a paper-heavy process requiring money and resources.The
proposed charter amendment aims to align the city's requirements with the Oregon Revised Statutes
and reduce costs which allows for electronic noticing.
Concerns were raised about referencing specific ORS citations in the charter due to potential future
legislative changes that would require voter approval to amend. Discussion included comparison with
neighboring municipalities and concerns about relinquishing home rule authority.Zahran clarified the
concept of home rule, noting it allows cities to be more restrictive, but not less restrictive,than state or
federal law.
Regarding residency requirements,the current charter language does not address a time
requirement for residency before running for elected office.The proposal would establish a residency
requirement of 12 months prior to running and add that elected officials maintain residency
throughout their term of office.The 12-month residency requirement is a recommendation from the
League of Oregon Cities (LOC), noted as relevant with four Council seats up for election in November,
and was brought forward as a baseline consideration for discussion.
Several councilors spoke against making charter changes at this time, noting that noticing
requirements were not causing significant problems,the cost was manageable,and that such
changes would be better addressed as part of a larger, more comprehensive charter review.
City Council Study Session
February 2,2026
Page 1 of 2
During discussion about residency requirements, it was noted that the current charter language does
not specify when residency must be established or whether it must be maintained throughout an
elected official's term.This lack of clarity raised concerns regarding the application process and the
implications for both elections and appointments. Kolodzinski explained that the current process
involves contacting Jackson County to verify that the candidate is a registered voter and the address
provided on a candidate's form matches their voter registration. This ensures the candidate's
information aligns with the requirements for running for office. The ambiguity surrounding the timing
and maintenance of residency creates potential complications for the certification process.
Discussions considered adopting language akin to the State's SEL form with the intent to enhance
consistency and eliminate potential ambiguities in the qualification process for both elected and
appointed officials. Additional discussion on vacancies in the charter states an office may be deemed
vacant if the officeholder ceases to possess qualifications for the office,which could address the
concern about maintaining residency.
After extensive discussion,the Council reached consensus not to pursue either charter amendment
for the May election. Instead, direction to staff was given to have the Ashland Municipal Code Review
Group develop an ordinance to clarify the residency requirements for elected officials, including the
requirement to maintain residency throughout one's term and that candidates affirm they meet the
qualifications.
The Council emphasized that this approach would provide necessary clarity without requiring charter
amendments at this time. They acknowledged that these issues could be revisited as part of a more
comprehensive charter review process in the future.
III. Adjournment of Study Session.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 pm.
City Recorder Alissa Kolodzinski Mayor Tonya Graham
City Council Study Session
February 2,2026
Page 2 of 2
Fj!II
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
Study Session
Submit this form to the meeting Secretary prior
to the discussion item.
1)you will be called forward when it is your turn to speak
2) State your name and speak clearly into the microphone
3) Limit your comments to the time allotted
4) Provide any written materials to the meeting Secretary
5) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their statement
Date:
f
Name: (Please Print)
� i
Ashland Resident:
S n NO City:
Agenda Topic/item Number:
Please respect the order of proceedings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are
loud or disruptive are disrespectful and offenders will be
requested to leave.
Disclaimer: By submitting this request to address the Public
Body, I agree that I will refrain from the use of any obscene,
vulgar, or profane language. I understand that if I do not follow
procedure my speaking time may be terminated, and I may be
requested to sit down or leave the building.
Paul Mozina City Council not Required to Obey the Charter February 2, 2026
You are discussing aligning the Charter with the Oregon State Statutes, but what
good is that if the Charter is not enforceable? The Ashland Charter has
fundamental flaws and conflicts of interest embedded in it, that make it highly
unlikely that—if the Council were to violate it—they would be held accountable.
Last summer I contacted Ashland Chief of Police, Tighe O'Meara, regarding the
Council's violation of the Charter's requirement that any action taken by the
Council be preceded by a public motion and vote. The Charter mandates that the
Chief is responsible for enforcing the Charter and that failure to do so is grounds
for removal. He asked me to explain the nature of the violations. In response to
my summary, and citation of his duties under the Charter, he had this to say:
Paul, WHILE I AGREE THAT THE CHARTER HAS THOSE WORDS, I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE MEANT TO MAKE ME RESPONSIBLE for
investigating procedural deficiencies if they do in fact exist. The City
Attorney is the Parliamentarian for Council operations, so he, not me, would
be in charge of addressing this. However, it is PRESUMPTIOUS to assume
that this is anything other than, at worst, a simple mistake.
As you have seen I have cc'd the CM [City Manager] and the CA [City
Attorney], and I will await guidance from them about what next steps, if
any, are to be taken. [my emphasis]
He quickly followed up with this:
Paul, just to close the loop on this, I have learned that the CA has already
addressed your concerns, so I will not be looking into this any further. Have
a good day.
While ostensibly, being responsible for enforcing the Charter, the Chief relied on
the opinion of the "Parliamentarian", City Attorney Johan Pietila's, justification of
the Council's actions to ignore my "presumptious [sic]" complaint. Never mind
that the Chief didn't bother to explain exactly how the CA had addressed my
concern that the council's "procedural deficiencies" were in fact violations of the
Ashland Charter.
Paul Mozina City Council not Required to Obey the Charter February 2, 2026
The May 19, 2025, Council Study Session and the June 3, 2025, Council Business
Meeting occurred shortly after Pietila had been appointed City Attorney. He was
newly responsible for insuring that the Council followed parliamentary rules—
including the Ashland Charter. Apparently, this made him the perfect person to
judge whether or not the Council, under his watchful eye, had violated the explicit
requirements of the Charter when they failed to vote on the amendments they
made to the 2025-2027 Biennial Budget.
The principle that "no one shall be a judge in his own cause" originated in ancient
Roman Law and is obviously a cornerstone to any adjudicative procedure. But the
obvious conflict of interest in this case was no impediment to Chief O'Meara: THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN HAS RULED, now "Have a good day."
The Charter also stipulates regarding the Chief that: "... and a failure or neglect to
faithfully perform any or all of such duties shall be cause for REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE BY THE CITY COUNCIL." Does anyone think the Council would remove the
Chief for failing to hold THEM accountable for obeying the Charter?
The inherent structural flaws in the Ashland Charter make it highly unlikely that it
will be enforced when the perpetrators of the violations are the Mayor and
Council. When those responsible for investigating the violations serve at their
pleasure of the violators, nothing will be done. When the City Attorney is allowed
to be the judge in his own cause and the Chief of Police is too lazy to investigate
the matter, the Ashland Charter is unenforceable.
Please see my Ashland Chronicle article "Is the Ashland Charter Enforceable?" for
the complete timeline of my attempt to file a complaint against the Ashland City
Council.
https://theashlandchronicle.com/guest-opinion-is-the-ashland-charter-
enforceable