THE CITY OF KENT, OHIO HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE WED., FEB. 5, 2014

THE CITY OF KENT, OHIO HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE WED., FEB. 5, 2014 This meeting of the Health & Safety Committee of Kent City Council was called to order at 7:02 p.m. on Wed., Feb. 5, 2014 by Jack Amrhein, Chair. PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MR. AMRHEIN, MR. DeLEONE, MR. FERRARA, MR. KUHAR, MS. LONG, MS. SHAFFER, MR. SIDOTI, MS. WALLACH, AND MR. WILSON J. FIALA, MAYOR & PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL; D. RULLER, CITY MANAGER; J. SILVER, LAW DIRECTOR; B. SUSEL, DIR. OF COMM. DEV.; G. ROBERTS, SERVICE DIRECTOR; M. LEE, POLICE CHIEF; J. BOWLING, CITY ENGINEER; AND L. JORDAN, CLERK OF COUNCIL Chair Amrhein said the first issue dealt with parking restrictions on Erie & Depeyster Streets. Dave Ruller, City Manager, said they may have noticed that Erie Street and Depeyster Street, with the new development, has changed. He said they have not changed the parking to match the geometry and the current allowances. Mr. Ruller said to catch up; they need to modify the current parking regulations so it is applicable to what is out there now. Mr. Ruller said that the Police Chief, City Engineer, and Service Director were present. He said the Service Director explained this is a procedural matter, but they can talk details if needed. There was no audience comment at this time. Mr. Wilson asked if these streets would also be getting meters, and Mr. Ruller said that was correct. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR ERIE AND DEPEYSTER STREETS, WITH THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE. Motion made by Mr. Ferrara, seconded by Mr. Wilson, and carried by a voice vote of 8-0-1, with Mr. Amrhein abstaining. Chair Amrhein said the next item was a recommendation to change the dangerous dog ordinance. Mr. Ruller said Jim Silver, Law Director, has brought this to their attention. Mr. Ruller said their current ordinance does not match the State ordinance, and they are recommending adoption of the State ordinance. Mr. Silver said they had an issue with a dog, brought to his attention by the Police Chief and the Animal Control Officer. He said this would clarify the issue, matching the State ordinance, and make things cleaner. Ms. Shaffer asked if this alignment with the State ordinance heightens the regulations and makes them stricter, and asked the biggest change. Mr. Silver said the two ordinances do not match toe-to-toe. He said the main difference would be in Section A (1) of the proposed changes. He said their language spoke of the propensity to attack unprovoked or cause injury to human or domestic animal without provocation, or a dog that is harbored and trained to fight. He said that language is not in the new ordinance. Mr. Silver said he cannot tell them which is better or worse, adding it would make the Animal Control Officer s life easier if they use the same definition. Ms. Shaffer asked if it makes the City safer, and Mr. Silver said that he, personally, did not think it changed much. He said if one walks into another dog owner s house, and their dog goes after a person, they will still not be helped. He said he did not see a big difference. He said it is a little clearer under the State regulations, as you do not have to show whether an attack was provoked or unprovoked. He said they just need to look at the results. Ms. Wallach said they are not strict enough. She said the second definition for a dangerous dog speaks of killing another dog. She asked what happens if the owner is with the dog and intervenes, and it did not

have the chance to kill the dog. Mr. Silver said if they are on the other dog owner s property, then the dog is considered to be protecting its property. He said they cannot use one situation to apply the law. Ms. Wallach suggested they could add seriously injured or killed another dog, adding the regulations do not go far enough. Mr. Silver asked who would determine what the definition is of seriously, adding it is still a judgment call in his opinion, as the one who has to prove it. Ms. Wallach read from the draft at this time. She said if they have to take their dog to the vet, and it takes months to recover, that could be considered a serious injury. Mr. Silver said if they do not want to change it, they do not have to. Ms. Wallach asked what was there before, and Mr. Silver read it at this time, as follows which attacks a human being or a domestic animal without provocation. Ms. Wallach said there is a list of penalties in Section (K), and asked if they go with Section (K) only. Mr. Silver said it goes with the entire section, adding that the L should be slid over and underneath the K. He said it does apply to the entire section. Mr. Wallach said the amendment says that in any event, the law enforcement agent, if they believe a dangerous dog is harbored and cared for, may petition the court to confiscate the dog. She said it is up to the officer s judgment whether to impound them. She said if they decide to not impound them, then the penalty is only enforced on the second violation. She suggested they have a minimum fine for the first violation, and suggested they should pay for all medical expenses, whether it is for a human or an animal, and be fined if medical treatment is required. Mr. Silver said it is a first degree felony after the first offense. He said the second attack brings a mandatory $1,000 fine. He said a first offense brings up to $1,000 and jail up to six months. Ms. Wallach asked if they would be fined on the first offense. Mr. Silver said it is not their call, adding a judge can fine them up to $1,000. Ms. Wallach asked if they could put in a minimum fine for the first offense, and Mr. Silver said they can do that, but he would rather leave it to the Court s discretion. Mr. Wilson asked if they can charge under the State Code with any dog problem, and Mr. Silver said they can charge under the City Code, as the definition would be the same. Mr. Wilson asked if it is a problem for the Kent Police whether they can charge under the State Code, and Mr. Silver said the officers have that choice. Mr. Wilson asked if they can bring in the County Dog Warden, and Mr. Silver said that was correct. Mr. Kuhar asked if this just constitutes how they name a dog dangerous, and is not breed sensitive to a specific breed, and Mr. Silver said that was correct. Mr. Sidoti asked if the City has an ordinance, and their police enforce it, whether the County Dog Warden plays any role in intercession, and Mr. Silver said he was aware of one time the Dog Warden was contacted. He said if the Dog Warden thought it was a violation, he could charge under the State Code. He said the Dog Warden did not think it was a violation under the State Code. Mr. Silver said the County Dog Warden can enforce state laws within the City. Mr. Sidoti commented that he shares the jurisdiction. Ms Shaffer asked if there is a distinguishing difference between a dangerous dog and a menacing dog. She said a dangerous dog appears to be one that has already done the deed and hurt someone. She said a menacing dog causes one to think it may hurt them. Mr. Silver said a menacing dog is not the same as a dangerous dog. Ms. Shaffer asked if a dog barks at her and terrorizes her or her dog, if it is not dangerous, and asked if it would have to bite her. Mr. Silver said that was correct. He said if it was not on its property, it can be cited under the City s leash law. Mr. Silver said that is a minor misdemeanor. Hearing no further questions, Chair Amrhein called for audience comment at this time. Laura Mazur, 321 Pleasant Ave: Ms. Mazur said she lives three streets from Standing Rock. She said she and her dog have been attacked three times by the same dog in less than two years. She said two were on public property (the sidewalk), and once in her front yard. Ms. Mazur said the first time; the dog broke through its front door. She said there was no medical attention needed, and the daughter of the owner retrieved the dog. She said the second time was in her front yard, adding she was part of the attack, as she was knocked down. She said there were vet bills of $400 to $500, and they were paid by the owner. Ms. Mazur said the third attack was last October, on the sidewalk, as they were walking. She said on the second attack, she was able to call out for the owner, who lived four houses away, to get their dog. She said she reached for the dog s collar, but knew better than to do more than that. She said if

she has her right hand bitten, she goes from making a modest contribution in the City to being one who is a burden to those who care for her. She said she was carrying for her father at that time. Ms. Mazur said the third attack occurred on the sidewalk, next to the owner s house. She said during that time, she spoke with Kent s Animal Control Officer, and Dave McIntyre, the County Dog Warden. She said that Mr. McIntyre told her that the worst attacks are when someone tries to get between a Rottweiler and a small dog. She said when she tried to pick up her dog; the Rottweiler turned his attention to her. She said she recoiled, screaming as she watched her dog picked up and shaken. Ms. Mazur said she screamed so loudly that someone from across four lanes of traffic on Mantua Street came to help her. Ms. Mazur said she was so terrorized; she urinated, soaked to her knees. She said that attack cost $800 to $900. She said her dog almost died with the last two attacks, adding that propensity to attack is valuable to have in the ordinance. Ms. Mazur said if the City Code enhances the State Code, it is legal. She said if it contradicts the State Code, it is not legal. She said if that was in effect, the dog would have been deemed dangerous, and she would be safe. She said she looked at getting a gun, and taking lessons on how to shoot it. She said she has carpel tunnel, and is unlikely to be able to shoot. Ms. Mazur said the dogs will not go down the street, and she cannot walk down by the river. She said she cannot be on her property without being at risk, as well as her dogs. Ms. Mazur said she is at risk by virtue of her proximity to her dogs. She encouraged them to keep the propensity clause in there, adding that no one has protected her. She said she is a sixty-one year old woman with medical problems. Ms. Mazur said if she falls and breaks a hip, she will be a burden on society. Ms. Mazur said she spoke to Mr. McIntyre and he said that since the Rottweiler attacked her dogs three times, it is a menacing dog. She said this dog would be deemed dangerous, as those attacks were menacing. She said currently, a dog has to bite someone or kill someone. She said the dog is still alive, and she has not been bitten. She said she did not allow herself to be bitten. Ms. Mazur said the dog warden told her that is how he would interpret the new state ordinance, and would deem the dog a dangerous dog. Ms. Mazur asked if there is anything they can do to protect her and her dogs. She said she is vulnerable, and has no fenced back yard. She asked if this is an American Civil Liberties case, and asked if she should be allowed to walk down the sidewalk. Ms. Mazur asked them to do what they can, adding she is at a loss. Caleb Dunn, 316 Pleasant Ave: Mr. Dunn explained he is Ms. Mazur s neighbor. He said he does not understand the details of the law. Mr. Dunn said he has a three-year-old and a five-month-old, along with his elderly mother-in-law who lives with him. He said this worries him, as Ms. Mazur was attacked and still could be attacked. He said he would like his family to use the yard, adding he is unsure if it would take one more attack for something terrible to happen. Mr. Dunn said if the dog has a history of violence, something should be done instead of having to wait. He said he hoped there is something that can be done to strengthen the language. Michelle Lee, Police Chief: Chief Lee said she was originally involved after the third attack, when she reviewed it with Dana Frazier, the Animal Compliance Officer. She said these three instances were over a period longer than two years. Chief Lee said there were some problems, adding the first incident was never documented. She said Ms. Mazur got with the dog s owner, had the vet bills paid, and did not want a report. She said the second time was when Ms. Mazur was knocked down. She said Mr. Frazier advised her that someone saw Ms. Mazur s dog urinating in the yard, causing the dog to attack so the provocation was questionable. Chief Lee said she did not know all of the details. She said there were some sketchy details on the third time. She said the witnesses would not come forward. Chief Lee said Ms. Mazur and the neighbor made arrangements for payment of the vet bills, and the dog was sent to behavior classes. Chief Lee said this happened over two years. Chief Lee said she asked Mr. McIntyre if, in his opinion, this was a dangerous dog, and he said it, in his professional opinion, it was not deemed as a dangerous dog. Chief Lee said they deal with few of these issues, and let the Dog Warden make the call, as he deals with the entire county. She said on the second offense, the dog owner was charged, and Mr. Silver was aware of the situation. She said he indicated he did not think it was a dangerous dog. She said they still

do not see this as a dangerous dog, which is why they did not cite it further. She said this is one reason why they are reviewing the ordinance. Mr. Ferrara asked about the correlation between a complaint and an actual event, adding it should not matter whether a complaint was filed if the dog was attacked on three separate instances. He said it should not negate the fact that the dog may be dangerous. Chief Lee said in a court of law, to be deemed dangerous or terminated, they need documentation. She said they need more than what someone said. Chief Lee said she believed it happened, but in their legal system, they need more than what someone said. She said they did not have a date, a time, or witnesses. Mr. Ferrara noted this discussion pertains to the City s definition, and not this incident and Chief Lee said that was correct. Ms. Mazur said, from the audience, that it has happened within two years. She said she has not lived in her home for three years. She said her dogs did not urinate or defecate in their yard, adding it was on her tree lawn. She said it was five steps from her front yard. Ms. Mazur said her dogs did not go to the bathroom, adding she dragged them up her stairs. She said she was in her front yard and her tree lawn, adding they were never in their yard. Ms. Wallach asked Ms. Mazur if the second incident was in her yard, and she said that was correct. Ms. Wallach asked if she was told it was not dangerous because there were no witnesses even though her dog went to the vet, and Chief Lee said it returns to the term propensity. She asked what that means, whether it is once or ten times. Ms. Wallach said if it is in her front yard, there seems to be propensity. Chief Lee said that is why they went to the dog warden for his opinion, and he did not think the two incidents were enough. Chief Lee said this dog appears to have no other issues with any other dogs. She said there are other dogs in the neighborhood, and this dog has not attacked anyone else s dog. She said these attacks are specific to Ms. Mazur s dogs. Ms. Wallach asked if they clarify to propensity to attack or cause serious injury, whether they have to be penalized. She said in the State s Code, the dog does not have to be put down. Chief Lee said the owners were cited for dogs at large, but charges were not filed for the dangerous dog section. Ms. Wallach said that is a mistake. Ms. Shaffer said she was trying to wrap her mind around the law. She said there have been dogs attacked in her neighborhood. She said she thought if she called the Police Department they could do something besides charging the owner with a minor misdemeanor. She asked if they can amend it to be dangerous or menacing, adding it does not have to cause serious injury or kill for them to have something to file on. Ms. Shaffer said it sounds like the test is so strict that something terrible is going to happen. She said they need to tighten it up, and need some language for those dogs that attack and terrorize. Mr. Kuhar said that any time a Rottweiler is ticked off, they are dangerous. He asked if they can add language that if an animal has shown aggressive behavior on more than one occasion, they could be deemed dangerous. Mr. Silver suggested they leave what they have or adopt the State. He suggested he would not recommend modifying the State. Mr. Kuhar asked if that is the best way to go or would it hinder things, and Mr. Silver said it was their call. He said he preferred the State ordinance. Mr. Sidoti asked the Law Director if, with either ordinance, he was walking down SR 59 and a dog comes out of their yard, knocks him down, and bites him if there is no recourse, and Mr. Silver said if it leaves the property, the owner can be fined under the leash law. He said the fine is $150 with $98 in court costs. He said the City code calls for injury, and the State code calls for serious injury. Mr. Silver said it is a higher standard, adding that charges can be filed. He said the question is whether they are successful. He said there is nothing in between those two statutes. Mr. Ferrara said in either case, it would not have made a difference in Ms. Mazur s case. He said they are discussing the adoption of either the State Code or continuance of the City code. Ms. Wallach said she would like to keep their existing ordinance and see if they can do something to tweak it. She said it is bad, adding the dog attacked three times. She asked how much they were fined, and Mr. Silver said he did not know offhand. Ms. Wallach asked if it was $150, and he said that is the

maximum. Ms. Wallach said that even with payment of the vet bills, it is still not right. She suggested they keep their ordinance and look at it further. Mr. Kuhar said Ms. Mazur mentioned the thought of a pistol. He suggested she may want to keep pepper spray on a key chain. Ms. Mazur said the dog warden told her it would not work, as it would just make the Rottweiler angry. Ms. Shaffer said they need more time to review this issue, adding she would like more time to consider the issues mentioned. Mayor Fiala asked the Chief if this was the only case where this has happened, and Chief Lee said there was one other in the Silver Meadows area. She said the dog was outside on a chain, and attacked children on two occasions they were aware of. She said it was a deemed a dangerous dog, and they involved the Dog Warden in that case as well. She said the dog was destroyed. Chief Lee said that the owner can destroy the dog, carry high liability insurance, keep it in a fully enclosed cage, or keep it inside. She said this owner terminated the dog. Chief Lee said there have been only these two incidents since she has been Chief. Mayor Fiala noted they can supersede the State code under home rule. MOTION TO NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CHANGESAND REVIEW KENT S ORDINANCE TO TIGHTEN IT UP. Motion made by Ms. Wallach, seconded by Ms. Shaffer. Ms. Wallach said there are a lot of gaps, adding the State Code seems too loose. She said they need to keep in the issue of propensity. She said if there is one occurrence where someone is viciously mauled, that is one too many. She asked why they should wait for something to happen. Ms. Wallach said they need to set aside the State s version and reevaluate their version. Ms. Shaffer said she would like to compare them side by side. She said it is not what is better for City staff, but what will help the people in the community. Ms. Shaffer said this has happened in her neighborhood, and they have had dogs charge people. She said she has not heard of injuries, but it is an infringement on someone s well being and freedom. Mr. Ferrara said he would vote against the motion, and go with the Law Director s recommendation to follow the State code. He said in either case, people are letting this incident cloud the issue. He said neither the State nor the City code would have helped Ms. Mazur. He said this is not an issue about how they would help that incident. Ms. Wallach said they do not have to align with the State, and can extend beyond the State as long as they do not contradict them. She said they can extend the state, not accept it. Mr. Wilson said they have to be able to defend their codes. He said if they supersede the State code, they will have trouble, possibly, defending themselves in Court. He said their best chance is having the same ordinance as the State. He said if they need to modify it, they can do so. He said in Section 8, someone could be charged for one bite. He said he felt they could work around it to make it work. Mr. Kuhar said there is definitely a problem when they are talking about a first attack. He said he did not want to cloud the issue either, adding he would also vote against the motion. He suggested that once they are uniform with the State Code that they look at another ordinance for a nuisance animal with certain criteria. The motion failed by a voice vote of 2-6-1, with Ms. Wallach and Ms. Shaffer supporting the motion. All others voted against it, except for Mr. Amrhein who abstained. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATION S RECOMMENDATION ON THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE. Motion made by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Ferrara. Mr. Wilson urged Council if they felt the ordinance did not go far enough, to forward language to the Law Director to see if it was defendable.

MOTION TO AMEND THE DEFINITION TO INCLUDE THE DOG BEING DEFINED AS DANGEROUS IF IT SERIOUSLY INURED OR KILLED ANOTHER ANIMAL. Motion made by Ms. Wallach, seconded by Ms. Shaffer. Ms. Wallach said seriously injured is good enough. She said it might be in the process of killing a dog, and the owner might intervene. The amendment carried by a voice vote of 8-0-1, with Mr. Amrhein abstaining. Mr. Sidoti said it is difficult when they charge people. He said he hoped their goal is to help people take responsibility for having a dog. He said it is troublesome to him, as they can make any law. He said no matter how tough the law is, there will be irresponsible people who will not care. He said they have people ignoring their laws now. He said Mr. Wilson made a valid point about aligning with the State. He said they need to say they mean business and protect their citizens from irresponsible dog owners. He said if a dog attacked one time, he would lose sleep over it. He said at some point, he would like to look at the penalty for a first attack. He suggested they put some teeth in it, with no pun intended. He said if no message is being sent to take care of that irresponsible behavior, it would not matter. He said someone could be mauled or disfigured for life. Mr. Sidoti said he supports the motion, but they need future development. The motion carried by a voice vote of 8-0-1, with Mr. Amrhein abstaining. Chair Amrhein said the next issue was about the party registration concept with the University. Mr. Ruller said this is one of those items they have learned about that other cities are trying to help to improve their parties. He said they ask for a contact person, so they have someone to notify. Mr. Ruller said some cities have done this as a voluntary registration program, adding that Chief Lee has learned a little more. He said it is something they would like to try in the Spring semester to see how it works. He said they were requesting their authorization to give it a try, adding a little communication with the Police Department is a valuable thing. Chief Lee said it is a simple idea that they have been discussing for years. She said Shay Little was present from Kent State. She said Ms. Little attended a conference about Clemson University, who has done this program. She said Clemson had problems peaking in 2011, and started the program in 2012. She said they reduced their large party calls between 25% to 45%. She said if someone wants a party, they register their name, address, and contact information either on a website or with the Kent Police Department. She said if they get a loud noise complaint, the people registered have twenty minutes to get it under control. She said it is a twenty-minute jumpstart on their response. She said if it is more than a noise complaint, like nuisance, trash, or urination, they will still respond. She said if they have multiple complaints, they will automatically respond. Chief Lee said Clemson has seen a reduced amount of calls and a lot of success. She said there is no cost to start the program, adding they will collect their information. She said whenever they fill out the registration; the officers will be notified about the upcoming party. Mr. DeLeone asked what the incentive would be for registration, and Chief Lee said they would have a twenty-minute head start. She said if there is a complaint, they would have twenty minutes to correct it. Chief Lee said they would have information on the two contacts on file. Ms. Wallach asked if she has worked with the community liaison with this, and Chief Lee said they have discussed this for years. She said this plan has worked with Clemson, a university similar to Kent State University. She said they started with their Greek organizations, and she is planning on doing it for the entire City, not just the Greek organizations or Kent State students. She said she is skeptical as well, adding it does not hurt to try it nor does it cost anything. Mr. Kuhar said if he understands it, this would be a totally voluntary program that could be for any type of party and does not have to be university related. He said people will give them information, so if something goes astray, they have someone to cite. Chief Lee said it gives them the ability to tell them to turn down the music and/or get the party under control.

Mr. Wilson said they will have one contact person, and the Chief said they will have two contacts. Mr. Wilson said they have lost five people to cite, adding the Police generally cite all of the people at the house. He asked if everyone who sponsors the party can be the ones to register, and Chief Lee said more often than not, they only cite one person. She said they only cite every person if no one steps forward. She said with this program, one or two will step forward. Mr. Wilson asked if five people are having a party if they can ask who they are, and Chief Lee said they can, adding they can ask what they are wearing. She said the whole reason for the contact info is to allow them the opportunity to straighten up the party before they respond and get it under control. Mr. Wilson said some parties take collections coming in the door to help pay for the noise ordinance ticket. Chief Lee said whether they respond at 11:30 or 11:50, it is all the same. She said she was unsure what he meant. Mr. Ruller said nothing precludes them from citing all five, but this guarantees they will get two of them. Chief Lee said every spring and fall, they get calls from residents wanting to have a party, and asking that they be informed if anyone complains. She said there are responsible people, adding there are parties all over some neighborhoods. She said Ms. Little just mentioned that it gives ownership to the party. She said there are responsible people who would appreciate a phone call. Ms. Long asked if a party does not register and there is a complaint, if there would be any consequence, and Chief Lee said they would respond as normal. She said if necessary, they will cite and/or shut it down. She said even if they are registered and they wait twenty minutes, they will still do the same amount of enforcement. Mr. Kuhar asked if this program would be more accepted if they provided some amnesty for the registrar of the party, and Mr. Sidoti noted they already have twenty minutes. Chief Lee said that would be a detriment, as they will be scrambling so they are not cited. She said that is not what they are trying to target with this program. Mr. Kuhar said they may have ten times more participation because of it. Chief Lee said Clemson increased their party registration more than triple from one year to the next. She said they had 48 one year and 155 the next, adding there was success. Mr. Kuhar said his fear, like with everything else, is that it is a voluntary program that becomes mandatory. He said they will start interfering with the rights of assembly. He noted that was not a question. Ms. Wallach asked who Shay Little was, and Chief Lee said she is the Dean of Students. Ms. Wallach asked how they would disseminate this information, and Chief Lee said they would use all avenues, including Facebook, websites, and available periodicals. Ms. Little said they would work with the various organizations, and the Undergraduate Student Government. She said that is where they would probably start as those are key student leaders. There were no further questions or audience comment at this time. MOTION TO APPROVE THE PARTY REGISTRATION PROGRAM. Motion made by Ms. Shaffer, seconded by Mr. Sidoti. Ms. Shaffer commended them for attempting this program. She said there was a smaller experiment in California, and people did register. She said some people want a responsible party, and things do get out of hand sometimes. She said it is a really good experiment. Mr. Sidoti said anything they can try to help civic responsibility come to the forefront is worth the effort. Mr. Kuhar said he would support it just so he is not a stick in the mud. He said he was sure they were still going to deal with drunks, and he did not see Aunt Betty registering her party. The motion carried by a voice vote of 8-0-1, with Mr. Amrhein abstaining. Hearing no further business before this Committee, Chair Amrhein adjourned this meeting at 7:40 p.m.

Linda M. Jordan, Clerk of Council ACTION RECOMMENDED: 1) TO AUTHORIZE THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR ERIE AND DEPEYSTER STREETS, WITH THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE. 2) TO AUTHORIZE THE AMENDMENT TO THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE DEFINITION TO INCLUDE THE DOG BEING DEFINED AS DANGEROUS IF IT SERIOUSLY INURED OR KILLED ANOTHER ANIMAL. 3) TO AUTHORIZE THE PARTY REGISTRATION PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH KENT STATE UNIVERSITY.