HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-01 Charter Review Commission Meeting PacketCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, April 1, 2024
5:30 PM
Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
1.Introductions
2.Future meeting schedule
Regular meeting days and times
Summer Schedule
3.Select Chair and Vice Chair
4.Distribution of Materials
City Charter - Revised
Citizens Guide to the Charter - Revised
2014-2015 Charter Review Commission meeting minutes
5.General Overview of Charter
6.Structure
Identification of Issues
7.Adjournment
Page 1
IOWA CITY CHARTER 1
Preamble
Definitions
Article I. Powers Of The City
§ 1.01. Powers Of The City.
§ 1.02. Construction.
§ 1.03. Savings Clause.
Article II. City Council
§ 2.01. Composition.
§ 2.02. Division Into Council Districts.
§ 2.03. Eligibility.
§ 2.04. Terms.
§ 2.05. Compensation.
§ 2.06. Mayor.
§ 2.07. General Powers And Duties.
§ 2.08. Appointments.
§ 2.09. Rules; Records.
§ 2.10. Vacancies.
§ 2.11. Council Action.
§ 2.12. Prohibitions.
Article III. Nomination, Primary Election And Regular Election
§ 3.01. Nomination.
§ 3.02. Primary Election.
§ 3.03. Regular City Election.
Article IV. City Manager
§ 4.01. Appointment; Qualifications.
§ 4.02. Accountability; Removal.
§ 4.03. Absence; Disability Of City Manager.
Page 2
§ 4.04. Duties Of City Manager.
§ 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts.
Article V. Boards, Commissions And Committees
§ 5.01. Establishment.
§ 5.02. Appointment; Removal.
§ 5.03. Rules.
Article VI. Campaign Contributions And Expenditures
§ 6.01. Limitations On The Amount Of Campaign Contributions.
§ 6.02. Disclosure Of Contributions And Expenditures.
§ 6.03. Definition.
§ 6.04. Violations.
Article VII. Initiative And Referendum
§ 7.01. General Provisions.
§ 7.02. Commencement Of Proceedings, Affidavit.
§ 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures.
§ 7.04. Procedure After Filing.
§ 7.05. Action On Petitions.
§ 7.06. Results Of Election.
§ 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of Stricter Conditions Or Requirements.
Article VIII. Charter Amendments And Review
§ 8.01. Charter Amendments.
§ 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
Notes
1 1. The home rule charter of the city, adopted by the voters of the city on November
15, 1973, and by ordinance 76-2792 on January 2, 1976, pursuant to I.C.A. section
372.9, is set out herein as adopted and amended.
Page 3
PREAMBLE
We, the people of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the constitution and statutes of the state of
Iowa and the principle of self-determination, proclaim that the government of Iowa City
belongs to all its residents and all share the responsibility for it. We hereby adopt this
charter and confer upon it the full home rule powers of a charter city. By this action we
adopt the following principles:
1. Resident participation on an inclusive basis in democratic self-government.
2. The provision of service relating to the health, safety, and welfare of its residents in a
fair, equitable and efficient manner.
3. The conduct of city business in conformity with due process, equal protection under
the laws, and those individual liberties protected by the constitution of the United States,
the state of Iowa, and local ordinances.
4. Civility by city employees in their interactions with the public. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-
2015)
DEFINITIONS
As used in this charter:
1. "City" means the city of Iowa City, Iowa.
2. "City council" or "council" means the governing body of the city.
3. "Councilmember" means a member of the council, including the mayor.
4. "Shall" imposes a duty.
5. "Must" states a requirement.
6. "May" confers a power.
7. "Eligible elector" means a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa City.
8. "Qualified elector" means a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote in Iowa
City.
9. "Board" includes a board, commission, committee or other similar entity however
designated.
10. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association,
political party, committee or any other legal entity.
11. "Ordinance" means a city law of a general and permanent nature.
Page 4
12. "Measure", except as provided in article VII, means an ordinance, amendment,
resolution or motion. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976; amd. Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985; Ord. 05-
4152, 3-1-2005)
ARTICLE I. POWERS OF THE CITY
Section 1.01. Powers Of The City.
The city has all powers possible under the constitution and laws of this state. (Ord. 76-
2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 1.02. Construction.
The grant of power to the city under this charter is intended to be broad; the mention of a
specific power in this charter is not intended to be a limitation on the general powers
conferred in this article. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 1.03. Savings Clause.
If any provision of this charter, or the application of this charter to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL
Section 2.01. Composition.
The city council consists of seven members. As provided in article III, four, to be known as
councilmembers at large, are to be nominated by eligible electors of the city at large, and
three, to be known as district councilmembers, are to be nominated by eligible electors of
their respective districts. All councilmembers shall be elected by the qualified electors of
the city at large. (Ord. 85-3273, 12-17-1985)
Section 2.02. Division Into Council Districts.
The council, by ordinance, shall divide the city into three council districts of substantially
equal population. These districts are to be designated as council district A, council district
B, and council district C. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Page 5
Section 2.03. Eligibility.
To be eligible to be elected to and to retain a council position, a person must be an eligible
elector of Iowa City, and if seeking or elected to represent a council district, must be an
eligible elector of that council district. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 2.04. Terms.
At the first election under this charter, all seven councilmembers are to be elected; the
councilmember from council district A, council district C, and the two councilmembers at
large who receive the greatest number of votes cast for councilmember at large are to serve
for terms of four years, and other councilmembers are to serve for terms of two years.
Commencing at the next regular city election, and at all subsequent regular city elections,
all councilmembers elected to fill the positions of those whose terms expire shall be elected
for terms of four years. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 2.05. Compensation.
The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the mayor and the other
council members. The council shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of
November and December immediately following a regular city election. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-
2005)
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the beginning of the terms of councilmembers elected at the
regular city election, the council shall meet and elect from among its members the mayor
and mayor pro tem for a term of two years. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
B. The mayor is a voting member of the council, the official representative of the city,
presiding officer of the council and its policy spokesperson. The mayor may add items to
the city council agenda. The mayor shall present to the city no later than February 28 an
annual state of the city message. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
C. The mayor pro tem shall act as mayor during the absence of the mayor. (Ord. 85-3227,
3-12-1985)
Section 2.07. General Powers And Duties.
All powers of the city are vested in the council, except as otherwise provided by state law
or this charter. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
Page 6
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. The council shall appoint the city manager.
B. The council shall appoint the city clerk. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
C. The council shall appoint the city attorney. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995)
D. The council shall appoint all members of the city's boards, except as otherwise
provided by state law. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
E. The council shall fix the amount of compensation, if any, of persons it appoints and
shall provide for the method of compensation of other city employees. All appointments
and promotions of city employees by city council and city manager must be made
according to job-related criteria and be consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal
employment opportunity standards established pursuant to law. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-
1995)
Section 2.09. Rules; Records.
The council may determine its own rules and shall maintain records of its proceedings
consistent with state law. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 2.10. Vacancies.
The council shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective city office as provided by state law.
(Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 2.11. Council Action.
Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires a majority vote of all the
members of the council except as otherwise provided by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-
2005)
Section 2.12. Prohibitions.
A. A councilmember may not hold any other city office or be a city employee or elected
county official while serving on the council nor hold any remunerated city office or
employment for at least one year after leaving the council. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
B. With the exception of the appointment of the chief of the police department and chief
of the fire department, which are subject to approval of the city council, neither the council
nor its members may dictate, in any manner, the appointment or removal of any person
appointed by the city manager. However, the council may express its views to the city
Page 7
manager pertaining to the appointment or removal of such employee. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-
2005)
C. A councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or direction of any person
appointed by or under the control of the city manager. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
ARTICLE III. NOMINATION, PRIMARY ELECTION AND REGULAR ELECTION
Section 3.01. Nomination.
A. An eligible elector of a council district may become a candidate for a council district
seat by filing with the Johnson County commissioner of elections a valid petition requesting
that his or her name be placed on the ballot for that office. Unless otherwise provided by
state law, the petition must be filed not more than eighty-five (85) days nor less than sixty-
eight (68) days before the date of the election. Unless otherwise provided by state law, the
petition must be signed by eligible electors from the candidate's district equal in number to
at least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city
election, but not less than ten (10) persons.
B. An eligible elector of the city may become a candidate for an at-large council seat by
filing with the Johnson County commissioner of elections a petition requesting that the
candidate's name be placed on the ballot for that office. Unless otherwise provided by state
law, the petition must be filed not more than eighty-five (85) days nor less than sixty-eight
(68) days before the date of the election. Unless otherwise provided by state law, the
petition must be signed by eligible electors equal in number to at least two (2) percent of
those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but not less than ten
(10) persons. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 3.02. Primary Election.
A. If there are more than two candidates for a council district seat, a primary election
must be held for that seat with only the qualified electors of that council district eligible to
vote. The names of the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the
primary election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular city election as candidates for
that council seat. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
B. If there are more than twice as many candidates as there are at large positions to be
filled, there shall be a primary election held unless the council, by ordinance, chooses to
have a run-off-election. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
Page 8
Section 3.03. Regular City Election.
A. In the regular city election, each council district seat up for election shall be listed
separately on the ballot and only the names of candidates nominated from that council
district shall be listed on the ballot as candidates for that seat. However, all qualified
electors of the city shall be entitled to vote for each candidate. The three council district
seats shall be designated on the ballot as council district A, council district B and council
district C and each shall be elected at large.
B. The at large council seats shall be designated on the ballot as such. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-
12-1985)
ARTICLE IV. CITY MANAGER
Section 4.01. Appointment; Qualifications.
In appointing a city manager, the council shall consider only the qualifications and fitness
of the person without regard to political or other affiliation. During his or her tenure the
city manager shall reside within the city. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 4.02. Accountability; Removal.
A. The city manager is under the direction and supervision of the council and holds office
at its pleasure. A city manager removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay
as provided by contract. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
B. Upon the resignation or removal of the city manager, the council shall appoint an
individual qualified to perform the duties of city manager to serve at the pleasure of council
or until a city manager is appointed. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 4.03. Absence; Disability Of City Manager.
The city manager may designate a qualified city employee as acting city manager to
perform his or her duties during a temporary absence or disability. If the city manager does
not make such a designation, the council shall appoint a qualified city employee to perform
the duties of the city manager until he or she returns. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 4.04. Duties Of City Manager.
A. The city manager shall be chief administrative officer of the city and shall:
(1) Insure that the laws of the city are executed and enforced.
Page 9
(2) Supervise and direct the administration of city government and the official
conduct of employees of the city appointed by the city manager including their
employment, training, reclassification, suspension or discharge as the occasion requires,
subject to state law.
(3) Appoint the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire department
with the approval of the city council.
(4) Supervise the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department,
including their suspension or discharge as the occasion requires. Such supervision shall not
be subject to approval of the city council.
(5) Appoint or employ persons to occupy positions for which no other method of
appointment is provided by state law or this charter.
(6) Supervise the administration of the city personnel system, including the
determination of the compensation of all city employees appointed by the city manager
subject to state law or this charter.
(7) Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the city,
supervise all purchases of materials and supplies, and assure that such materials and
supplies are received and are of specified quality and character.
(8) Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and undertakings of the
city, and all city-owned property including buildings, plants, systems, and enterprises, and
have charge of their construction, improvement, repair and maintenance except where
otherwise provided by state law.
(9) Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans, drawings,
specifications and estimates for the city.
(10) Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and permits authorized by
state law or city ordinance and cause a record thereof to be maintained.
(11) Prepare and submit to the council the annual budgets in the form prescribed
by state law.
(12) Provide the council an itemized written monthly financial report.
(13) Attend council meetings and keep the council fully advised of the financial and
other conditions of the city and its needs.
(14) See that the business affairs of the city are transacted in an efficient manner
and that accurate records of all city business are maintained and made available to the
public, except as otherwise provided by state law.
(15) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and professional
assistance to boards within limitations of the budget.
(16) Perform such other and further duties as the council may direct. (Ord. 05-4152,
3-1-2005)
Page 10
B. The city manager, in performing the foregoing duties, may:
(1) Present recommendations and programs to the council and participate in any
discussion by the council of any matters pertaining to the duties of the city manager.
(2) Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs of any department or the
conduct of any employee under supervision of the city manager.
(3) Execute contracts on behalf of the city when authorized by the council. (Ord. 85-
3227, 3-12-1985)
Section 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts.
Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the city manager shall not take part in any
election of councilmembers. This prohibition shall in no way limit the city manager's duty
to make available public records as provided by state law or this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-
2-1976)
ARTICLE V. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Section 5.01. Establishment.
A. With the exception of the community police review board, the council may establish
boards in addition to those required by state law and shall specify the title, duties, length of
term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The council may reduce or
increase a board's duties, transfer duties from one board to another or dissolve any board,
except as otherwise provided by state law or this charter.
B. There shall be a permanent community police review board, which shall have vested
in it the following minimum powers:
1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing views on
the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City police department;
2. To make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the
city council;
3. To investigate claims of misconduct by sworn police officers and to issue
independent reports of its findings to the city council; and
4. The authority to subpoena witnesses. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Page 11
Section 5.02. Appointment; Removal.
The council shall, subject to the requirements of state law, seek to provide broad
representation on all boards. The council shall establish procedures to give at least thirty
days' notice of vacancies before they are filled and shall encourage applications by
residents. Council procedures for the removal of members shall be consistent with state
law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005; amd. Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 5.03. Rules.
A. The council shall establish rules and procedures for the operation of all boards, which
must include but are not limited to, the adoption of by-laws and rules pertaining to open
meetings and open records. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
B. The council shall specify, for each board, methods for informal and formal
communication with council, time schedules for the completion of reports requested by
council and such rules as it deems appropriate.
C. A board may establish additional rules and procedures that are consistent with state
law, council rules, and this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
ARTICLE VI. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Section 6.01. Limitations On The Amount Of Campaign Contributions.
The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the amount of campaign
contributions made to a candidate for election to council by a person as defined in this
charter. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995)
Section 6.02. Disclosure Of Contributions And Expenditures.
The council, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring the disclosure of the
amount, source and kind of contributions received and expenditures made by (1) each
candidate for election to council and (2) any and all other persons, for the purpose of aiding
or securing the candidate's nomination or election. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 6.03. Definition.
Within this article "contribution" shall be defined as that term is defined in chapter 68A
("campaign finance") of the code of Iowa. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005; amd. Ord. 15-4621, 5-
19-2015)
Page 12
Section 6.04. Violations.
The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe: (1) penalties for the violation of the contribution
limitations and disclosure requirements it establishes pursuant to this section; and (2)
when appropriate, conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right to serve on council if
elected, consistent with state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 7.01. General Provisions.
A. Authority.
(1) Initiative. The eligible electors have the right to propose measures to the council
and, if the council fails to adopt a measure so proposed without any change in substance, to
have the measure submitted to the voters at an election.
(2) Referendum. The eligible electors have the right to require reconsideration by
the council of an existing measure and, if the council fails to repeal such measure, to have it
submitted to the voters at an election.
(3) Definition. Within this article, "measure" means all ordinances, amendments,
resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of a
permanent rather than temporary character and (b) include a proposition enacting,
amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy or plan, as opposed to one providing
for the execution or administration of a law, policy or plan already enacted by council.
B. Limitations.
(1) Subject Matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall not extend to any of
the following:
(a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature.
(b) The city budget.
(c) The appropriation of money.
(d) The levy of taxes or special assessments.
(e) The issuance of general obligation and revenue bonds.
(f) The letting of contracts.
(g) Salaries of city employees.
(h) Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law.
(i) Amendments to this charter.
Page 13
(j) Amendments affecting the city zoning ordinance or the land use maps of the
comprehensive plan, including the district plan maps.
(k) Public improvements subsequent to city council action to authorize
acquisition of property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public
improvement, whichever occurs earlier. "Public improvement" shall mean any building or
construction work.
(2) Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall be filed within two
years after the same measure or a measure substantially the same has been submitted to
the voters at an election.
(3) Council Repeal, Amendment And Reenactment. No measure proposed by
initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the council without submission to the voters,
or adopted by the voters pursuant to this article, may for two years thereafter be repealed
or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the
original initiative measure. No measure referred by referendum petition and repealed by
the vote of the council without submission to the voters, or repealed by the voters pursuant
to this article, may be reenacted for two years thereafter except by vote of the people,
unless provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition.
C. Construction.
(1) Scope Of Power. It is intended that this article confer broad initiative and
referendum powers upon the eligible electors of the city.
(2) Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because it
repeals an existing measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new measure and
(b) an initiative petition may amend an existing measure.
(3) Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal a measure in
whole or in part.
D. Effect Of Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not
suspend or invalidate any measure under consideration. Such measure shall remain in full
force and effect until its amendment or repeal by council pursuant to section 7.05A or until
a majority of the qualified electors voting on a measure vote to repeal or amend the
measure and the vote is certified.
E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing measure
in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the city, its agencies or
any person in reliance on the measure during the time it was in effect. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-
2015)
Page 14
Section 7.02. Commencement Of Proceedings; Affidavit.
A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors, hereinafter referred to as the
"petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the city
clerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be
responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying
the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed
initiative measure or citing the measure sought to be reconsidered.
B. Affidavit. The city clerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face it appears to
have signatures of one or more qualified electors. The city clerk shall issue the appropriate
petition forms to the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted for filing. The city
clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms and affidavits
suitable for the commencement of proceedings and the preparation of initiative and
referendum petitions. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures.
A. Number Of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by eligible
electors equal in number to at least ten percent (10%) of the number of persons who voted
in the last regular city election, but such signatures of eligible electors shall be no fewer
than ten. (Res. 16-258, 8-29-2016)[November 2016 Special Election]
B. Form And Content. All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially
uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one instrument. Each person signing
shall provide, and the petition form shall provide space for, the signature, printed name,
address of the person signing and the date the signature is executed. Petitions prepared for
circulation must contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text
of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the city clerk
need have attached to it only one copy of the measure being proposed or referred.
C. Affidavit Of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have
attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by an eligible elector certifying: the number
of signatures on the paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures were
affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes them to be genuine signatures of the
persons whose names they purport to be and that each signer had an opportunity before
signing to read the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any
person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by state law.
D. Time For Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an initiative petition must be
secured and the petition filed within six months after the date the affidavit required under
section 7.02A was filed.
Page 15
E. Time For Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty
days after final adoption by the council of the measure sought to be reconsidered, or
subsequently at any time more than two years after such final adoption. The signatures on
a referendum petition must be secured during the sixty days after such final adoption;
however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final adoption, the signatures
must be secured within six months after the date the affidavit required under section 7.02A
was filed.
F. Revocation Of Signature. Prior to the time a petition is filed with the city clerk, a
signatory may revoke his or her signature for any reason by filing with the city clerk a
statement of his or her intent to revoke his or her signature. After a petition is filed a
signatory may not revoke his or her signature. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and
have available to the public, forms suitable for the revocation of petition signatures. (Ord.
15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 7.04. Procedure After Filing.
A. Validity Of A Petition. A petition is valid if it contains the minimum required
signatures by eligible electors in the required form and with the required content and
accompanied by the affidavit of circulator as set forth in section 7.03. The petition shall be
examined by the city clerk before it is accepted for filing. If the petition appears valid on its
face it shall be accepted for filing. If it lacks the required number of signatures it shall be
considered invalid and returned to the petitioners. Petitions which have been accepted for
filing are valid unless written objections are filed with the city clerk within five working
days after the petition is received.
B. Hearing On Objections; Objections Committee. Written objections timely filed with the
city clerk shall be considered by an objections committee made up of the mayor and city
clerk and one member of the council chosen by the council by ballot, and a majority
decision shall be final. The hearing on the objections shall be held within ten days of receipt
of the objections.
C. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the objections
committee's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 7.05. Action On Petitions.
A. Action By Council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been determined
valid, the council shall promptly consider the proposed initiative measure or reconsider the
referred measure. If the council fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure and fails to
adopt a measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the council fails to
repeal the referred measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally
determined valid, it shall submit the proposed or referred measure to the qualified electors
of the city as hereinafter prescribed. If at any time more than thirty days before a scheduled
initiative or referendum election the council adopts the proposed initiative measure or
Page 16
adopts a measure which is similar in substance or if the council repeals a referred measure,
the initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred
measure shall not be submitted to the voters.
B. Submission To Voters.
(1) Initiative. The vote of the city on a proposed measure shall be held at the regular
city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the
expiration of the sixty day period provided for consideration in section 7.05A, provided
that the initiative petition was filed no less than 80 days prior to the deadline imposed by
state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections.
(2) Referendum. The vote of the city on a referred measure shall be held at the regular
city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the
expiration of the thirty day period provided for reconsideration in section 7.05A, provided
that the referendum petition was filed no less than 50 days prior to the deadline imposed
by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections. The
council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred measure any time
more than 120 days after the filing of the referendum petition with the city clerk.
C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred measure shall be made available to the
qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the city's expense in the manner
required for "questions" in section 376.5 of the Iowa Code. The subject matter and purpose
of the referred or proposed measure shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-
2015)
Section 7.06. Results Of Election.
A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative
measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election
results. The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as
measures of the same kind adopted by the council, except as provided in section 7.01B(3).
If conflicting measures are approved by majority vote at the same election, the one
receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such
conflict.
B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote
in favor of repealing the measure, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the
election results. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of Stricter Conditions Or Requirements.
The council shall not set, except by charter amendment, conditions or requirements
affecting initiative and referendum. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Page 17
ARTICLE VIII. CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW
Section 8.01. Charter Amendments.
This charter may be amended only by one of the following methods:
A. The council, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the voters at a
special city election, and the proposed amendment becomes effective when approved by a
majority of those voting.
B. The council, by ordinance, may amend the charter. However, within thirty (30) days of
publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the
code of Iowa is filed with the council, the council must submit the amending ordinance to
the voters at a special city election, and the amendment does not become effective until
approved by a majority of those voting.
C. If a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa is filed with
the council proposing an amendment to the charter, the council must submit the proposed
amendment to the voters at a special city election, and the amendment becomes effective if
approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
The council, using the procedures prescribed in article V, shall establish a charter review
commission at least once every ten years following the effective date of this charter. The
commission, consisting of at least nine members, shall review the existing charter and may,
within twelve months recommend any charter amendments that it deems fit to the council.
The council shall either exercise its power of amendment pursuant to section 8.01B of the
charter on a matter recommended by the commission or submit such amendments to the
voters in the form prescribed by the commission, and an amendment becomes effective
when approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Page 18
CHARTER COMPARATIVE TABLE
The home rule charter is set out in this volume as adopted by the voters on November 15,
1973, and by ordinance 76-2792, on January 2, 1976. The following table shows the
disposition of amendments to the charter:
Ordinance
Number
Date Disposition
77-2826 3-15-
1977
6.01
77-2858 9-6-
1977
7.05B
77-2864 9-6-
1977
3.01
85-3227 3-12-
1985
Definitions 7,8, 2.01, 2.03, 2.05 - 2.08, 3.01 - 3.03, 4.04, 5.02,
6.04, 7.01 - 7.05, 8.01, 8.02
85-3228 3-12-
1985
6.02
85-3273 12-17-
1985
2.01
90-3462 6-26-
1990
7.03A, 7.04A
95-3671 3-28-
1995
2.06B, 2.08C,E, 3.01A, 6.01, 7.04D
05-4152 3-1-
2005
Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2.05, 2.11, 2.12B, 3.01A, 3.02A, 4.04A,
5.02, 5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03B,C,E, 7.04A,B,C,
7.05, 7.06, 8.01, 8.02
Res. 07-262 8-31-
2007
5.01
15-4621 5-19-
2015
Preamble, 2.06B, 3.01, 4.02A, 5.01, 5.02, 6.03, 7.01, 7.03, 7.04,
7.05, 7.06, 7.07
Petition 11-
2016
7.03A
GUIDE
TO THE
IOWA CITY
HOME RULE CHARTER
November 2016
GUIDE TO THE IOWA CITY HOME RULE CHARTER
Table of Contents
Disclaimers ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction to the City's Home Rule Charter ................................................................. 1
What is a Home Rule Charter? ...................................................................................................................... 1 Where can a copy of Iowa City's Charter be found ....................................................................................... 1 What must a Charter contain? ....................................................................................................................... 1 What is a Charter Review Commission? ....................................................................................................... 2 What is meant by "Home Rule"? .................................................................................................................... 2
Iowa City's Form of Government .......................................................................................... 2
How is the City government organized? ........................................................................................................ 2 What is the make up of the City Council? ...................................................................................................... 2 How is the Mayor selected and what are Mayor's duties? ............................................................................ 3 How does one become a candidate for Council? .......................................................................................... 3 What is the relationship between the City Council and the City Manager. .................................................... 3 Does the Charter address the hiring of City employees? .............................................................................. 3 What does the Charter say about Boards and Commissions? ...................................................................... 3 What does the Charter say about the campaign contribution limitations? ................................................... .4
The Charter Amendment Process ........................................................................................ 4
How can the Home Rule Charter be amended? ............................................................................................ 4 What is the process by which an eligible elector may petition to change the Charter? ............................... 4 How does the amendment process begin? ................................................................................................... 4 What is the role of the City Clerk? ................................................................................................................ 5 Can someone object to a petition to amend the Charter that has been accepted for filing by the City Clerk? ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 What happens if an objection is filed? ........................................................................................................... 5 How can a decision of the Objections Committee be challenged? ............................................................... 5 When will the election on the Charter amendment occur? ............................................................................ 5
Initiatives and Referendums ................................................................................................... 6
What are initiatives and referendums? .......................................................................................................... 6 What are the subject matter limits on initiatives and referendums? .............................................................. 6 What should I do if I'm not sure whether my proposal can be an initiative or referendum? .......................... 6 How is the initiative or referendum process started? .................................................................................... 7 What is the "affidavit" and who must sign it? ................................................................................................. 7 Where does the affidavit go? ......................................................................................................................... 7 What is the "petition" and how many signatures are necessary? .................................................................. 7 What are the deadlines for gathering signatures and filing the petition? ...................................................... 7 What happens after the petition is filed with the City Clerk? ......................................................................... 8 What happens if an objection is filed? ........................................................................................................... 8
What does the Council do with a petition that has been found to be valid? .................................................. 8
When is the election held for an initiative and referendum? .......................................................................... 8 How many votes are required for an initiative or referendum question to pass? .......................................... 9
ADDENDUM: Sample Timelines for Initiative
ii
GUIDE TO THE IOWA CITY HOME RULE CHARTER
November 2016
Disclaimers.
This Guide is designed to provide basic information on the Charter. It is not an exhaustive
explanation of Home Rule charters in general or the City's Home Rule Charter specifically. The Guide has been prepared by the City Attorney and is based on the law applicable at the time of its writing. This Guide is not intended to be considered -nor relied upon -as legal advice by a resident wishing to file a petition to amend the Charter or to launch an initiative or referendum campaign. It is meant to be a user friendly guide to help better understand their charter.
INTRODUCTION TO THE CITY'S HOME RULE CHARTER
What is a Home Rule Charter?
Iowa law (section 372.1 of the Code of Iowa)* allows cities to choose from among eight (8) possible forms of municipal government, one of which is a Home Rule Charter. The Charter itself is an ordinance that sets forth how the city government is structured. On November 15, 1973, the voters of Iowa City ("City") chose to be governed by a Home Rule Charter, and the first Charter was adopted by Ordinance No. 76-2792 on January 2, 1976. Iowa City is one of only five (5) municipalities in Iowa with a Home Rule Charter.
Where can a copy of Iowa City's Charter be found?
The Charter is the first section of the City Code, which can be found at the Iowa City Public Library and the City Clerk's office. Both the Charter and the Code are available online. Go to the City's web site at www.icgov.org and click on "City Government''.
What must a Charter contain?
There are five (5) minimum requirements for a Charter listed in Iowa Code section 372.10, and they are: 1) a City Council with an odd number of members, but not less than five (5); 2) a Mayor, who may be one of those Council members; 3) terms of office for the Mayor and Council members of either two (2) years or staggered four (4) years; 4) the powers and duties of the Mayor and the Council consistent with the provisions of the City Code of Iowa (Chapters
362, 364, 368, 372, 376, 380, 384, 388 and 392 of the Iowa Code); and 5) a Council representation plan pursuant to section 372.13(11 ). • All references to the Code oflowa are to the 2015 Iowa Code1
What is a "Charter Review Commission"?
The Charter Review Commission is a group of residents appointed by the City Council at least once every ten (10) years to review the Charter and recommend amendments to Council.
Council must either pass an ordinance adopting the recommended amendments or submit the recommended amendments to the voters. The fourth, and most recent, Commission was established by Council resolution on January 7, 2014 and began their work in April 2014. The Commission submitted its recommendations to amend the charter in March 2015, and Council adopted all the recommendations by ordinance on May 19, 2015. Minutes and reports of the previous five (5) Charter Commissions, including the original Charter Commission, are available
in the City Clerk's office and archived on the City Government website.
What is meant by "Home Rule"?
"Home Rule" is the broad, although not unlimited, constitutional grant of power to every city in Iowa authorizing self-governance. Municipal Home Rule became effective in 1968 by virtue of an amendment to the Iowa Constitution, voted on by the people. Later, the legislature adopted Iowa Code Section 364.1 as part of the Home Rule Act, to complement the Constitution. That section states, in part: "A city may, except as expressly limited by the Constitution, and if not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, exercise any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the
city or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents." The Iowa Supreme Court has issued many opinions on the powers and limits of Home Rule. Determining whether a particular local ordinance or resolution is authorized by Home Rule in any particular instance requires a legal analysis.
IOWA CITY'S FORM OF GOVERNMENT
How is the City government organized?
The City's Home Rule Charter provides for a City Council of seven (7) members with a Council representation plan whereby, as explained more fully below, four (4) members are at-large
representatives and three (3) are district representatives. The Council appoints a City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk. The City Manager serves as the Chief Administrative Officer of the City.
What is the make up of the City Council?
The City has seven (7) Council members, who serve staggered, four-year terms. Four (4) Council members are "at-large" and are nominated by all voters and elected by all voters. Although the three (3) "district" Council members (Districts A, B, and C) are nominated solely by voters within their districts and any primary is held only within the district, they are elected by voters city-wide. Council elections are held in odd-numbered calendar years.
How is the Mayor selected and what are the Mayor's duties?
The voters do not elect the Mayor. Council members select the Mayor from among themselves at their first meeting of the calendar year after each city council election. The Mayor is a voting member of the council and has no veto power. The Mayor may add items to the City Council agenda. The Mayor is the official representative of the City, presiding officer of the Council and its policy spokesperson.
How does one become a candidate for Council?
A person files a petition signed by eligible electors with the Johnson County Commissioner of Elections (Johnson County Auditor) not more than eighty-five (85) and not less than sixty-eight (68)days before the election. An "eligible elector" is "a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa
City". The number of signatures required for a district seat, or an at-large seat, is at least twopercent (2%) of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election but notless than ten (10) persons. On June 1 of each election year, the City Clerk's office (319) 356-5043) makes available a packet of information such as the calendar date deadlines, the numberof signatures needed and nomination forms. Section 3.02 of the Charter describes when aprimary election is required.
What is the relationship between the City Council and the City Manager?
The City Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer of the City. Section 4.04 of the Charter contains a list of City Manager duties. All City employees, except for the City Clerk and the City
Attorney and their staffs, answer to the City Manager, who in turn answers to the City Council. The City Council passes legislation and establishes policies for the City. It is the duty of the City Manager to ensure that the City's ordinances are enforced and the policies are implemented.
Does the Charter address the hiring of City employees?
Section 2.08 of the Charter requires the City Council to appoint the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk, all of whom report to, are accountable to and are supervised by the City Council. The Council also approves the City Manager's appointments of the Police Chief and the Fire Chief. With the exception of the employees of the City Attorney and City Clerk, all other decisions concerning hiring, firing, discipline, and supervision of employees are made by the City Manager or those employees to whom he delegates responsibility, subject to Iowa law,
including Chapter 400 of the Iowa Code regarding civil service employees.
What does the Charter say about Boards and Commissions?
The only board or commission that is established by the Charter is the Community Police Review Board. With this exception, subject to state law (for example, section 414.6 of the Code of Iowa requires that the City have a zoning commission with certain duties), the Charter
authorizes Council to establish boards and commissions and to specify, among other matters, the terms of the members and their duties. Information on the wide variety of boards and commissions can be found on the City web site at www.icgov.org under "City Government". Current vacancies are posted in City Hall, and on the City's web site and are advertised in the Press-Citizen. Application forms are available on the City's web site and at the City Clerk's
Office. 3
What does the Charter say about campaign contribution limitations?
THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS
What is a Charter Amendment?
How can the Home Rule Charter be amended?
What is the process by which an eligible elector may petition to change the Charter?
How does the amendment process begin?
4
What is the role of the City Clerk?
Can someone object to a petition to amend the Charter that has been accepted for filing by the City Clerk?
What happens if an objection is filed?
How can a decision of the Objections Committee be challenged?
When will the election on the Charter amendment occur?
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS
What are initiatives and referendums?
An "initiative" under the City Charter is the right of an "eligible elector" to propose a "measure" to council. An "eligible elector" is a resident of Iowa City who is eligible to register to vote in Iowa City. A "referendum" is the right of eligible electors to require a reconsideration of an existing measure. In the Charter, "measure" means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion of a permanent legislative nature as opposed to an administrative matter. An example of a measure of a legislative nature is an ordinance defining weeds of a certain height to be a nuisance. An example of an administrative matter is the enforcement of the weed control ordinance. Unlike petitions to amend the charter, which are controlled exclusively by State law, the initiative/referendum process is set forth in detail and governed by Article VII of the Charter.
What are the subject matter limits on initiatives and referendums?
Section 7.018(1) of the Charter limits the right to initiative and referendum by excluding the following measures:
(a)Any measure of an executive or administrative nature.
(b)The City budget.
(c)The appropriation of money.
( d)The levy of taxes or special assessments.
(e)The issuance of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds.
(f)The letting of contracts.
(g)Salaries of City employees.
(h)Any measure required to be enacted by State or federal law.
(i)Amendments to the Charter.
(j)Amendments affecting the City Zoning Ordinance or the land use maps of theComprehensive Plan, including the district plan maps.
(k)Public improvements subsequent to City Council action to authorize acquisition of
property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public improvement,whichever occurs earlier. "Public improvement" shall mean any building or constructionwork.
What should I do if I'm not sure whether my proposal can be an initiative or referendum?
While some matters are clearly not within the scope of initiative and referendum, other proposals or ideas will require a more detailed legal analysis. The City Attorney will provide an opinion on whether a proposed measure can be the subject of an initiative or referendum after the initial affidavit setting forth the proposal (see later sections) is filed. If changes can be made to cure any defects identified by the City Attorney and the petitioner chooses to make them, a
revised affidavit can be filed. The City Attorney will respond to general questions about the scope of initiative and referendum prior to filing of the affidavit. However, the City Attorney represents the City and cannot ethically advise individuals, particularly given the typically diverse range of opinions on issues presented for initiative and referendum. Therefore, the City Attorney will not participate in the drafting of an initiative or referendum, but rather, will give an opinion once the affidavit is filed with the City Clerk. Any person who has questions about the validity of a proposal is encouraged to seek independent legal advice. 6
How is the initiative or referendum process started?
What is the "affidavit" and who must sign it?
Where does the affidavit go?
What is the "petition" and how many signatures are necessary?
What are the deadlines for gathering signatures and filing the petition?
Potential petitioners are encouraged to contact the City Clerk early in the process to determine the specific deadlines applicable to the petition.
What happens after the petition is filed with the City Clerk?
The City Clerk will examine the petition before it is accepted for filing. If the petition appears
valid on its face, it is accepted for filing. If the petition lacks the required number of signatures, it is considered invalid and will be returned to the petitioners. Petitions which have been accepted
for filing are valid unless written objections are filed with the City Clerk within five (5) working
days after the petition is received.
What happens if an objection is filed?
If an objection to the petition is filed, a three-person committee comprised of the Mayor, the City
Clerk, and a Council member chosen by ballot (hereinafter "Objections Committee") must
consider the objection. Objections may relate only to whether the petition contains the requisite
number of signatures of eligible electors, including their place of residence and the date on
which they signed. The hearing on the objections must be held within ten (10) days of the receipt of the objections. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the Objections Committee's actions shall be by petition for writ of certiorari.
What does Council do with a petition that has been found to be valid?
Council must consider the measure "promptly." If Council does not approve the measure in the initiative petition (or a measure similar in substance) within sixty (60) days after the petition is determined to be valid or repeal the measure in the referendum petition within thirty (30) days
after the petition is determined to be valid it must be submitted to the voters.
When is the election held for an initiative or referendum?
Under Section 7.05(8) of the Charter, elections are held as follows:
(1)Initiative. The vote of the City on a proposed measure shall be held at the regular
city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty (40) days after the
expiration of the sixty-day period provided for consideration in Section 7.05(A) [the 60-day period for Council consideration], provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than eighty (80) days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the Commissioner of Elections. Again, potential petitioners should review the
applicable deadlines with the City Clerk.
(2)Referendum. The vote of the City on a referred measure shall be held at the
regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty ( 40) days
after the expiration of the thirty-day period provided for reconsideration in Section 7.05(A) [the 30-day period for Council consideration] provided that the referendum petition was filed no less than fifty (50) days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of
ballot questions to the Commissioner of Elections. Again, potential petitioners should review
the applicable deadlines with the City Clerk. The Council may provide for a special
referendum election on a referred measure any time more than one-hundred twenty (120) days after the filing of the referendum petition with the City Clerk.
8
9
2019 Sample Timelines for Initiative
Important Note (signatmes required): lO'A, of the number of persons who voted at the last re� City election. (7.03A) = 724 signatures
/./, .. ,,�,., < � )�t Regular City eleelion --" CouncilAdopts Initiative �--� �which next occurs more
J.A� \O � • // '-,, "" /· than 40 days after the
� 1i� Cl· NOTH: SignafmaDDt be film •.or Submi1s Jo'�-t
·,'expiration of the 60 day
within6D1>aikrtllulate within60 J>ffiling(:·0SA))\, l period(7.0SB(l))
tllaftidavitwasfilalO.03D) ·•:-,_17 40 days
State Ballot Deadline August 30, 2019
No-v. 5. ,, lJI. '• �rJJ9 JJJCction
This is an initiative (NEW �lie measme · · only, It is not ��w,le to a referendum (.is enacted). You• mlt 1he Clirtr (Ar&k Vil) aoo Gu to 1he Iowa City Home Rule Charter for ulitionm information if you re oontanplating use of eitla pnmlme.
Charter Review Commission April 8, 2014 Page 1
MINUTES APPROVED CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Karen Kubby
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None INTRODUCTIONS: Chairperson Chappell welcomed everyone and thanked them for applying to serve on the Commission. He then asked if they could go around the table and introduce themselves, and perhaps share something about themselves, as well. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE: Regular meeting days and times – Chappell started off the discussion with future meeting schedules. He noted that after receiving everyone’s best times and days, the early morning slot seems to be the best for all. The hope is to meet every other week,
on the weeks that the Council is not meeting. Meetings would be scheduled for the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, starting at 7:30 A.M. Chappell then asked if Members would turn in any long-term absences, such as vacations, to the City Clerk so
that scheduled can be adjusted as needed. Members then discussed the meeting times and days, with it being noted that the early-
morning meetings probably won’t be best for public input. This would mean having special meetings in the evening hours. Karr asked for some clarification on the length of the regular meetings. Chappell noted that they should probably reserve the room from 7:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., just to have that extra time as needed. Karr stated that the meetings will typically be held in Harvat Hall, allowing them more space for others to attend. Chappell continued, noting that future meetings will have a more in-depth agenda, showing what section of the Charter will be reviewed. This will give the public more information in case they have a specific section they wish to attend. Summer Schedule – Chappell then spoke about summer schedules. Karr noted that she has received some individual schedules, but if others would like to contact her with their information, she can then come up with a summer schedule.
Charter Review Commission April 8, 2014 Page 2
SELECT CHAIR PRO TEM Chappell noted that the next item is to elect a Chair Pro tem. He added that he plans to attend every meeting, but that you never know what might come up. His role is basically to keep the process moving and to keep them following the agenda each meeting. Sullivan nominated Melvin Shaw as Chair Pro tem; seconded by Schantz. Motion carried 8-0; Kubby absent. DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS – Karr noted that Members have received a lot of including, including three past Commission minutes from 1974-75, 1984-85, 2004-05, as well as the final reports to the City Council from each of these past Commissions. Also included for Members to
review is the original Charter and the amendments to the Charter. Karr noted that Dilkes will review the current Charter and the Citizens Guide to the Charter with them shortly. Karr stated that as they move through their meetings, any other documentation or materials for reference
that are needed can certainly be supplied. She added that Members will receive a packet prior to each meeting. This led to a discussion about how Members will receive these packets – whether electronically or via mail. A question was asked about the agenda, and Karr explained
that the meeting packet will contain the agenda for that particular upcoming meeting, as well as any corresponding documentation. Chappell asked if anyone would have trouble receiving these electronically, especially since they will be meeting every other week. Vanderhoef noted that she would like to have a paper copy and that she will come down to City Hall and pick it up. Karr noted that she will need each Members’ email address so that she can send their packet to the correct address. Chappell noted that as Members become familiar with this information and documentation, they should note that as they go through the minutes, it really does track along with the Charter quite well. He noted that there will most likely be some of the very same concerns raised as in the past, and that Members can read how issues were addressed in the past. The final reports then are good summaries of what took place during that Commission’s tenure. For those who have no experience with the Charter, the Citizens Guide to the Charter can be very helpful, according to Chappell. Chappell continued, noting that staff will be present at each meeting to help them
with any questions they have, and he encouraged Members to ask questions and ask for clarification as needed. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CHARTER: At this point Dilkes gave Members a brief overview of the Charter. She noted that having a
basic understanding of what “home rule” means is a good start, and she briefly explained what this means. “Home rule” gives the City the power to legislate and act in ways that it determines are in the best interests of the City and its citizens, unless the State has expressly preempted them from doing so, such as cities do not have the power to tax. This is something that is expressly prohibited by State Code. Dilkes continued, stating that issues such as election laws are also prescribed by the State, and therefore the City must follow these rules. Dilkes then spoke about the Home Rule Charter. She noted that there are a number of ways cities can organize themselves under the State Code. Iowa City uses the Home Rule Charter, giving them more latitude in setting their own form of government. She continued to explain the details of the Home Rule Charter and how it applies to Iowa City. Dilkes reviewed briefly Articles I and II, noting that II deals with the make-up of the Council. Iowa City has seven Council Members, for
example. The City is divided into three Districts – A, B, and C – each with a seat, and four at-large seats on the Council. Of these seven seats, one is selected by the other Members to be the Mayor.
Charter Review Commission April 8, 2014 Page 3
Dilkes continued her explanation, noting the various appointments that the City Council makes. The three employees appointed by the Council include the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk. The Council also appoints the members of the various boards and commissions that it oversees as well. Continuing through the various Articles, Dilkes explained the inner-workings of the City government and how the various departments are set up. She noted those sections of the Home Rule Charter that are set by State Code, noting the Berent case that came out of Iowa City and went before the Supreme Court. Dilkes briefly touched on the hiring of the Police Chief and the Fire Chief and how the Charter covers this. Basically the Charter allows for the Council to set policy, and the City Manager’s job is then to administer and execute this
policy. Continuing through the Articles, Dilkes spoke about how the Council appoints to boards and
commissions. State Code does call for certain commissions, such as the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then there are others that the Council chooses to create, such as the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Citizens Police Review Board is the only board required by
the Charter, according to Dilkes. Speaking to Article VI, Dilkes noted that the Council has the authority to set campaign contribution limits. She gave Members some history behind this limit, noting that at one point it was eliminated because of a holding of the Eighth Circuit Court. After this case went to the Supreme Court, the Council set the limit at $100, which is where it is currently. Dilkes continued to speak to some of the issues with cities having the power to create initiative and referendum provisions. She explained what this allows citizens to do within their cities, such as collecting signatures on a petition and then presenting that to the Council on an issue. This then forces the Council to either enact what the petition has stated, or put the issue on a ballot for public consideration. Dilkes continued to touch on various initiative and referendum issues, giving Members examples of such. One example given was the 21-ordinance vote, which was by initiative and referendum. Dilkes then explained how when a
petition is received, her office reviews it and then the City Clerk’s office has to verify the signatures. If a petition falls short of the required signatures, for example, the petitioner has a second chance to gather the required number.
In Article VIII, Dilkes noted that this section deals with Charter amendments and review. She covered the various ways that the Charter can be amended, such as by Council ordinance or
citizen petition, and further explained how such processes take place. The final section that was reviewed dealt with the Charter Review Commission itself. Dilkes noted that the important thing to remember is that the Commission’s recommendations to the City Council must either be adopted by the Council, or they must be put on the ballot. STRUCTURE: Identification of Issues – Chappell noted that this section will show what they plan to do over the next year as they meet to review the Charter. Basically they will be reviewing the Charter, line by line, in as much detail as they need, in order to complete the review. He noted that the last time they did this, they had what they called ‘tentative approval’ on those sections they had basically completed their review on. Public Input Process – Chappell noted that there will be public input throughout their review process. He noted that they will look at the time for such input, and that if
Members hear anything about such issues to let the Commission know. He added that they can have special meetings for public input, ones where the public is allowed to state whatever they want about the Charter and there is no feedback from the Commission.
Or, on the other hand, they can have more interactive-type meetings, where smaller
Charter Review Commission April 8, 2014 Page 4
groups are used to discuss specific issues. Vanderhoef asked if there will be public time at each of the Commission’s regular meetings. Chappell responded that they will have this on upcoming agendas. Karr noted that they will also be going live on the City’s web site where they can solicit input from the public immediately. This correspondence will then be shared with Members in their meeting packets. Also noted, there is a dedicated email address: citycharter@iowa-city.org and there will be a press release out soon on this, according to Karr. Karr then asked Members when they would like to receive their packets. She asked if a Friday distribution would work for the Tuesday morning meetings. Members agreed to this, and Karr noted that they would do some electronic
testing and would also go live with the press release on this, as well. Chappell noted how each of them may have conversations with others during the day and the topic of the Charter might arise. He suggested they encourage people to share their ideas via
the web site or through email, so that everyone on the Commission can hear what they have to say. Dilkes reminded Members that now that they are a formal Commission, a quorum of them cannot talk to each other or have a meeting without it being properly
noticed. She explained that such conversations should take place during these meetings, that Members can talk to each other individually, but that five of them cannot be communicating simultaneously, unless it is at a public meeting that has been properly noticed. This can be carried over to electronic communication, as well, and she further explained this. It was further suggested that Members send any electronic communications through the City Clerk, so that she can distribute it to all of the Members. A question was asked about whether a Member should respond to an email that has been received by just them and not the entire Commission. Dilkes stated that the Member can choose to share this with the rest of the Members or not. Karr stated that if a Member should respond, it is best to ‘cc’ her so that she can copy the correspondence for the rest of the group and have it in the next packet.
Members continued to discuss how to handle email correspondence. Chappell noted that basically any email related to this Commission is public record, if asked for, no
matter what email address it is sent to or responded from. Chappell then spoke to public comment times, stating that typically at their meetings, they complete their work first and then ask for public comment. It was noted that they should probably have some rules on
this, such as public input should be limited to five minutes, which is what the Council does. Karr stated that typically the Council has public comment closer to the beginning of their agenda, and then they move on with their agenda, and then have public
comment time again at the end of the meeting, if it’s needed. She added that with the Commission’s short agenda, she doesn’t believe they need to have public comment in there twice. Karr stated that they could post this information on the web site so that those interested in addressing the Commission are aware of this beforehand. A question was raised about this public input, whether it will be just comments received or an exchange between Members and the public. Dilkes noted that if the issue raised is not on that day’s agenda, the Commission cannot engage with the public. The issue would need to be put on a future agenda, and properly noticed to the public. Members briefly discussed how they might handle such interactions with the public. In looking at the next meeting in two weeks (April 22), Chappell suggested that Members
start to read through the Charter. He stated that they might want to keep a list of specific items that they want further information or discussion on. On the next agenda, Chappell stated that they would most likely have the Preamble, Definitions, and Section I to
discuss.
Charter Review Commission April 8, 2014 Page 5
ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 8-0; Kubby absent.
Charter Review Commission
April 8, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O/
E
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X
Anna
Moyer
Stone
4/1/15 X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting --- = Not a member
Charter Review Commission April 22, 2014 Page 1
MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
None CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. Roll call was then taken. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: Chappell asked how Members would like to handle the approval of the Consent Calendar. The options are to vote on the minutes and correspondence items separately, or to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Majority agreed to adopt as one unit and allow discussion as necessary of individual items. Atkins asked what the rules are going to be with regard to correspondence. Chappell stated that it would be best to send correspondence to the group’s email address – citycharter@iowa-city.org. He added that if Members do receive individual
correspondence, they should forward this on to the other Members, or ideally send to Karr for inclusion and acceptance on the next Consent Calendar. Kubby asked if the attendance record will be part of the minutes, and Karr noted that it is. Kubby stated that she was shown as
‘excused’ at the April 8 meeting and that it should actually be ‘unexcused.’ Karr stated that she would correct this. Kubby stated that she also has questions about items in the minutes. She noted on page 3, in the middle, where it talks about the limit for contributions to political
campaigns locally. She questioned the $50 shown here, asking if it shouldn’t be $100. Dilkes replied that it had been lowered to $50, but that they did raise it up to $100 again. Karr will make the correction. Kubby also noted the comment about what can be talked about at meetings and if someone comes to public discussion, whether the Commission could engage in conversation with them. She stated that this seems discourteous to her, that if the person comes to the meetings and has questions, they should answer them or have a discussion at least. Atkins suggested they add wording to the agenda, such as, “If time allows, further items will be discussed.” Members continued to discuss this issue, noting that they want the public to feel they can come to any meeting and ask questions or share their concerns. Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended per discussion; seconded by Atkins. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission April 22, 2014 Page 2
REVIEW CHARTER:
Preamble Chairperson Chappell asked if a Member would volunteer to read the Charter’s Preamble aloud before they begin their review. Shaw offered to do this. Chappell asked if anyone had any questions regarding the Preamble, as they began their discussion. Sullivan asked if this section is basically intact from the original Charter. Karr noted that by looking at the ordinance number, you can tell that this section was passed in 1976, and therefore has not been amended since the original Charter. Kubby began the discussion by looking at the word ‘citizens,’ noting that
there are some residents of the city who are not citizens. She added that the word citizen is in the Preamble at least four times, which she believes feels a bit exclusive. Atkins asked Kubby what she meant by this, and Kubby stated that people who live here may be residents but not
citizens of the United States, for example. The Charter covers all people, and she wants that to be clear in the wording. She did question the changing of this word, but noted that it is something they should think about. Schantz noted that residents is used in #5. Craig added
that she wondered if it shouldn’t say “persons” or something along those lines in order to include everybody. Chappell stated that it appears they have two options here – they can either change “citizens” to something else, or they can add a definition of the word “citizen” in the definition section. Kubby stated that she believes the Preamble should be clear right away, not lead people to look up definitions. Shaw added that under the definitions section, under #10, it defines a person but not a citizen. He asked if both need defining. Dilkes noted that there has been some discussion in other commissions about the use of the term ‘citizens’. She added that if you look up the word citizen it says ‘a resident of…’ Chappell asked if using ‘resident’ would be a problem then, and Dilkes stated that she does not believe it would be. Atkins stated that he reads the Preamble as sort of a grand statement, noting that it
states, “That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the responsibility to it.” He doesn’t believe that the wording ‘to it’ at the end of that statement is very fitting here. He reworded it to say, “…and all share in that responsibility.” Atkins then
questioned #5, “That the City should perform all acts,” questioning if this shouldn’t say, “…shall perform…” in keeping with the style of the Preamble. He added that these small changes would help to polish and make stronger the statement of the Preamble. Chappell questioned this,
noting that ‘shall’ imposes a duty. Members briefly discussed this issue. Karr noted for Members that as they go through this process, staff will begin to make note of these proposed changes so that the Commission can go back to review and finalize any of these suggested changes. Atkins noted that #3 also has ‘should,’ and he questioned the use of ‘shall’ here, as well. Shaw questioned this, noting that if these things are not carried out, as is inferred with the use of ‘shall’, then who is responsible for failing to do so. Kubby stated that she is more inclined to change ‘should’ to ‘shall’ in #3, than she is on #5. Stone stated that she sees these as five principles, like goals, not rules. She believes a wording change, such as ‘should’ to ‘shall,’ would mean changing the basic feel of the Preamble, which is setting forth the principles adopted by the citizens of Iowa City.
Members continued to discuss the Preamble and possible wording changes, with Vanderhoef noting that she reads a change in #3 as meaning that the public officials are to be perfect and that the expectation from citizens would be this perfection. Dilkes added to the conversation at this point, noting that she believes there is a conflict between use of the word ‘shall’ and what the Preamble is intended to be. Sullivan added that he believes they should stay away from using words that they then have to specifically define as this tends to give them
more weight, something that the Preamble is not intending to do. Chappell noted that one word
Charter Review Commission April 22, 2014 Page 3
that is specifically defined, and used in the Preamble, is ‘measure.’ He added that he believes it is broadly enough defined, but he asked if anyone had any concerns with this. Members briefly discussed this. Karr then noted that the way this document is laid out is the Preamble is first, followed by Definitions. This typically means that you use those definitions as you read forward into the document. Craig asked for clarification on #3. She asked what an ‘affirmative obligation’ is versus an ‘obligation.’ Schantz noted that basically you’re expected to get out in front rather than react to a request from a citizen. Chappell agreed, stating that he sees it as an ‘obligation’ can be
related to doing or not doing thing, and ‘affirmative obligation’ means you are directed to make an effort to further that obligation. Schantz then commented on #2, where it talks about the government being a ‘service institution.’ He stated that he’s not really sure what that term
means. Sullivan, at this point, stated that in his view, Preambles are typically full of statements like this, that could be picked apart. He stated that they need to decide what they want the Preamble to actually do – something that is full of things to be aspired to or specific things that
the citizens want the government to do. Chappell asked the staff what their opinion is of the term ‘service institution.’ Dilkes responded that they talk about customer service a lot at the City, and to her this is just redundant to responsive and accountable to its citizens. Members continued to discuss the use of the word ‘service’ and what they see this to mean here. Shaw stated that if they are broadly saying the Preamble is aspirational in nature, then they should move on to the other parts. However, if they believe it has more meaning in how they review each of the different articles, then it is time well spent to review it this closely now. Chappell stated that this is a good point. He suggested they keep these initial principles in mind as they review the rest of the Charter. Atkins stated that he would like to see some more discussion on some of the issues they’ve brought up so far, such as the ‘citizen’ and ‘resident’
definitions. Chappell shared how this process took place ten years ago at the previous Charter Review Commission meetings, and what he is familiar with. He suggested that they make tentative changes along the way, and then at the end of the process they come back and
consider all of the changes together. This will allow the Commission to see how the various changes may or may not affect one another. Schantz asked if there is a current model Charter that they can use as a guide. He noted that there was mention of one in the minutes, but that
he hadn’t seen it. Dilkes stated that staff can look into this, but that she is not aware of one.
Definitions Chappell asked Craig to read the section. Chappell asked Dilkes which definitions, if any, would make her uncomfortable for them to discuss, as they closely match the current State law. Dilkes responded that it would really depend on what change the Commission were proposing. She added that if they do discuss any changes that she is uncomfortable with, she will definitely let them know. Members briefly discussed this issue. Sullivan stated that he will be interested in discussing ‘eligible’ and ‘qualified elector’ and hearing some input on this, as well. Vanderhoef brought up the use of ‘councilors’ versus ‘council members’. Schantz spoke to the definition of ‘person’ now, in reference to the Constitution issues. He suggested they flag this to
perhaps discuss further. Atkins then asked about the use of ‘eligible elector’ standards to the issue and/or another issue where you would use ‘qualified.’ Sullivan stated that he does not see much distinction between the two, that everyone is a voter as they are eligible to vote and can show up at the polls to vote. Chappell stated that both terms are used in the Charter, such as where it
states, “…only qualified electors can sign initiative and referendum petitions.” Sullivan
Charter Review Commission April 22, 2014 Page 4
continued to discuss this distinction, noting that he believes there is no real distinction. Chappell also spoke to this issue, noting that there is a distinction, because people need to actually register to vote to be considered ‘qualified.’ Stone then made the suggestion that ‘measure’ be alphabetized within the rest of the definitions, instead of being out of order. Karr noted that the definitions are not in alpha order, but rather in the order of where they fall in the Charter.
Article I – Powers of the City Sullivan volunteered to read Article I. Atkins asked if ‘invalidity’ is a word. Sullivan asked Dilkes
if these are things that should not be changed, that they are straightforward things that should be in the Charter. Dilkes agreed that these are in reference to State law about charters. Chappell asked if everyone agrees to then tentatively approve this section. Schantz agreed that
they would need all of this included, but he questioned a few word changes. He stated that if he still thinks this after reviewing the Iowa Code, he will bring up the issue again.
Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) None PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (2nd and 4th Tuesday of month): May 13 – Chappell noted the next meeting date and stated that they would be reviewing the Preamble and Definitions again, if Members so decide. They will then move on to reviewing Article II and adding the general wording of other sections as time allows. Discussion turned to the meeting schedule, with Karr noting that she picked a three-
month cycle, rather than a full year, for inclusion on the agenda tentative schedule and distribution of calendars. Chappell reviewed the dates quickly, and Atkins noted that he will be absent the 5/27 meeting. It was also noted that this is shown incorrectly as May 20 on the
agenda. Chappell asked the group’s preference for how to handle meetings when one Member is going to be absent. Members agreed to keep the schedule in tact with only one absent and the May 27 meeting date was confirmed.
Kubby asked if they are going to have a discussion about public input. Chappell stated that they will definitely add this back in to an upcoming agenda. Karr asked what Kubby means by this – public input at meetings or a general session. Kubby stated that she would like to discuss the ‘public process’ in general. Others agreed that this should be on an upcoming agenda. Shaw stated that he noted in past minutes that they had public input early on, with a lot of advertising and a push for public comment. Chappell suggested they put this topic on an upcoming agenda as well. It was also suggested they add a section on the agenda for “Committee Member Reports,” where Members could share information that they have received from the public. Karr will make those additions. ADJOURNMENT: Atkins moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
April 22, 2014
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 04/22/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X
Anna
Moyer
Stone
4/1/15 X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes (left 8:05), Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 04/22/14 – Chairperson Chappell asked if there was any discussion of the April 22 meeting minutes. Sullivan moved to adopt the April 22, 2014 meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Dilkes noted that Members received in their packets this week the model charter and the guide for charter commissions. She added that this is the eighth edition of the model charter. Karr apologized about the electronic glitch during the packet distribution. She reminded Members that there are two ways to get these packets, either via the link she sends or if they subscribe to City notices they will receive it as soon as it’s available. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: * Preamble – Chairperson Chappell began the discussion with the
Preamble section, noting that they talked about potentially making some adjustment to the word ‘citizen’ or at least having further discussion about this. Use of the word ‘shall’ was also part of their continuing discussion.
Chappell asked if anyone had anything they wanted to add at this point. Schantz noted that he did spend some time reviewing this since the last meeting and has come up with a preamble for them to discuss. He added
that it is more in form like the preamble to the model charter. He stated that he believes it focuses more on what a preamble is basically about. Schantz stated that he will get his revision to Karr for distribution to all of the Members. * Definitions – No discussion. * Article II – Chappell began the discussion by stating that this section is fairly large and that they may not get through all of it at today’s meeting. He suggested they take the first five sections, which talk about Council, and start their discussion. He asked if someone would volunteer to read the first two articles, and Sullivan did so.
Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 2
The review began with Sections 2.01 and 2.02. Chappell noted that he believes Iowa City is unique with four at-large districts. Sullivan noted
that this is the only part of the Charter that gives any guidance as to how the districts are set up, other than they are basically of equal population. He suggested that it might be helpful to have some more guidance as to how these districts are established. Kubby shared what it is like to run in a district seat and the challenges with a campaign. She stated that the system is not easily accessible at times. However, she does like the idea of having true districts and still having the four at-large seats, as well. Chappell then spoke to the number of council members. He stated that someone had suggested an increase, and Dilkes stated that it has to be an odd number. Chappell stated that he believes seven to be a good number. Sullivan added that a reason to add seats would be if it became obvious that there was a strong sense from the community that more members were needed. He does not, however, believe that they
currently need to add seats. Vanderhoef agreed, stating that she too believes the current number of Councilors is sufficient. Atkins spoke to the fact that the County ran three Board Members for a long time before
going to the current five. Chappell asked if anyone had any strong feelings about changing the number of council members. Schantz spoke to having nine members, for example, giving examples of how this number could work. Kubby noted that when there are too many members it can have a negative effect to getting things done. Sullivan asked if there is any interest in changing the districts, where perhaps five of them come from districts, with two at-
large. Kubby stated that it does not make sense to her, that districts would be too large under this scenario.
Vanderhoef asked Atkins if during his time as City Manager if he ever saw a Councilor that was only interested in their district. He stated that he does not believe this makes a big difference, that these members are
elected at-large and function pretty much the same. Kubby asked if there is a difference between a ‘ward’ and a ‘district.’ Members briefly discussed how typically large cities have wards that they are responsible
for, and that these typically have a fairly large population in each ward. Shaw asked how frequently districts are redrawn and just what this would entail. He also asked about councilor term limits, and whether these would change. Karr stated that districts are redrawn after each federal Census (ten years). She explained this process and how the Council then adopts an ordinance to adopt the new districts. Sullivan asked how it would be handled if they did in fact make any changes to the electoral system, if these would go into effect during the next City election or not.
Karr and Dilkes noted that without more specifics it would be hard to fully answer this question. Atkins gave some background information on charters and how electoral changes might occur.
Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 3
Chappell asked if there is anyone who does not want districts, that wants seven at-large members. Sullivan stated that he is not inclined to go with something like this, unless there are strong public feelings toward such.
He does not feel very strongly personally that the current set-up is bad. Stone noted that one extreme would be to have all seven at-large, and the other would be seven or however many districts and seats. She does not believe that they need fewer members, and the next option of nine or 11 does not seem to be necessary at this point either. Stone added that the hybrid system they have with their districts and at-large seats appears to be the best of both worlds. Chappell agreed that he likes the four (at large) / three (district) split they currently have. Shaw asked if it makes a difference where there are three districts, basically a smaller section, compared to the four at-large, and whether this creates a stronger debate for those in specific districts. Karr clarified how this works with a primary election narrowing the candidates from districts. Kubby noted that this is where the confusion lies with this system. Karr then responded to Members’ questions regarding elections and primaries. Kubby followed
up with where the differences lie in district versus at-large seats in the elections.
Atkins further clarified how districts are set up, noting they are say 20,000 each, and are strictly a ‘nose count.’ Districts are then drawn up according to this Census count. Sullivan stated that the more they talk about the system in Iowa City, the more he sees where some of these quirks could be a barrier to participation, as noted previously by Kubby. Shaw asked if there have been any candidates or councilors who have asked for expanded districts. Karr stated that she is not aware of anyone having broached this subject. Vanderhoef gave a brief history of how the
City began organizing neighborhoods back in the mid-90s in order to bring people closer together to function as a group. This can help bring some ‘governance’ to that neighborhood, and give them an awareness of
the City government, as well. Schantz added that the Near Northside Neighborhood works well, as does the Downtown Association, to get things done. He added that in his own particular part of town, he has not
heard of a neighborhood association. Craig spoke up at this point, saying that she likes the system as it
currently is. She was Council Member Dobyns’ campaign manager, and he ran as a district seat. She noted that she found that having to explain the ‘hybrid’ process helped to get people more interested in City government. She added that she does not believe the current system has ever kept voters from participating, especially those that have a strong interest in doing so. Members continued to discuss the district and at-large issue, with debate over whether the current system is confusing or not easily accessible to voters. Sullivan added that people do get
confused by these issues, that they don’t always understand who or what they are voting for. The general perception is that politics are hard to understand. Chappell spoke to some of the perceptions around voting
and those true barriers to this. He added that many just do not vote in local elections. Kubby added that she would like to make it as easy as
Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 4
possible for more voters to vote, to remove any barriers possible so people want to make the effort to vote. She believes that district candidates should be purely, genuinely district candidates. They would
live in, be petitioned by, and voted on by people who live in that specific district. At-large seats would be voted on by those in the at-large area. Karr asked if the only change would then be in the November election, and Kubby stated yes. Members continued to discuss barriers and obstacles to getting voters to participate in elections. Sullivan noted that for some there is too much confusion and they opt to not be engaged. There are various barriers and there isn’t one answer to solving the problem of getting more voter turnout. The discussion continued, with Members weighing in on why they believe having both district seats and at-large seats is the best option. Undervoting in districts was also discussed, with Members questioning voter turnout numbers during these types of elections. Schantz added that for many, unless there is an organizing issue such as
the 21-ordinance, you typically have lower turnout. He added that comments he has heard from people who follow City government include: strengthen the mayor, perhaps with an election for mayor. Chappell
stated that he is always skeptical of changing things just for the sake of changing. He added that he does not have any strong feelings on the district issue, though he prefers the 4/3 split with four at-large seats. As for the three districts, he does not feel strongly either way about changing things there. As the discussion wrapped up, Chappell noted that they will no doubt revisit these issues. He asked that Members think about these issues
and speak with others, and come up with any further information they wish to have before they have further discussions here. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
Chappell asked what ideas Members have in regards to garnering public involvement in this process. Sullivan asked what was done at the last Charter Review, ten years ago. Chappell stated that they had one or two designated hearings. One was allowing the public to just say
what they wanted to say while the Commission listened. The other was a more collaborative meeting where four specific topics were discussed in smaller groups, with Commission Members taking notes during these small discussions. Kubby stated that this was a good way
to actually have some dialogue and conversation, versus a typical meeting where the public speaks but there is no feedback. Karr reminded Chappell that she remembers there was also a third involvement session, after recommendations had been drawn up, to see if there was any further input from the public. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 5 TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month): May 27
June 10 June 24 July 8 July 22 August 12 August 26 ADJOURNMENT: Shaw moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
May 13, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X
Anna
Moyer
Stone
4/1/15 X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission May 27, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES APPROVED CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Steve Atkins Staff Present: Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
None CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 05/13/14 – Chairperson Chappell asked if there were any changes or additions to the minutes. Sullivan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 8-0, Atkins absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Karr noted that the web site is up and running, and that they are monitoring it daily. So far they have not received any feedback from the public. She added that she thinks they will see more activity as they discuss their public forums and things of that nature. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: Preamble – Chappell noted that Schantz had prepared a document that
was distributed in the meeting packet, and he turned the floor over to Schantz at this point to further discuss the document. Schantz noted that he is not wedded to changing the Preamble, but if they do make changes,
his suggestions would be a place to start. In beginning the review, Schantz noted that in form, the suggested revision is more like the model charter’s preamble. The first section notes the grant of power, and the
second section refers to intentions – values and principles. Schantz noted that the values listed are not all of the same order of magnitude or coherence. Civility, for example, is often in the eyes of the beholder. He added that he welcomes others’ comments, additions to the draft document. Vanderhoef stated that two things come to mind for her – she likes the use of the word ‘resident,’ and she brought up their previous conversation about ‘resident,’ ‘citizen, ’electorate,’ and then the ‘registered electorate.’ To her, ‘resident’ says everyone who lives there. Secondly, Vanderhoef stated that she noticed in the summary model, they talked about always including either self-determination or home rule,
Charter Review Commission May 27, 2014 Page 2
that this is the form they are using in Iowa City’s Charter. She believes they might want to discuss this further. Kubby noted that she did not see lots of different values between the current Preamble and the draft
presented by Schantz. However, she did believe that it read more from a legal standpoint than a layman’s, as does the current Preamble. Chappell asked if this is due to the text or because it is all in one paragraph instead of broken up. She responded that she believes it’s a combination of both. Chappell asked if everyone was okay with letting this stand as is for now until they can discuss it further. Definitions – Vanderhoef asked if they should add ‘resident’ here so that they are all-inclusive throughout the document. Chappell stated that his only response to this is if they leave the word undefined, it would then most likely have its most broad definition. Chappell also suggested that as they go through this review process, if others have items they would like to focus on, such as Schantz has done with the Preamble, to provide it in writing to Members. Kubby thanked Schantz for his Preamble draft,
noting that it is nice to have something like this ahead of time for review at a meeting. Article II – Chappell began the discussion regarding Article II, noting that they had been discussing the terms. There seemed to be some general consensus at this point, according to Chappell, for the number of Council Members remaining around seven. There was also consensus of keeping a four to three split on the at-large seats and district seats. Chappell then asked Vanderhoef to read aloud section 2.05 prior to their discussion. Chappell stated that he believes this section is fairly
noncontroversial, but he asked for other’s thoughts. He asked what others think of adding the month of October to the November and December already in the language; and whether people have a concern
about pandering to the public by saying, ‘We’re going to drop the salary because we’re more dedicated civil servants than those others.’ Sullivan asked what the current salary numbers are for the Council. Karr
responded that it is $6,000 for mayor and $5,000 for a council member. He asked if this is the highest it’s been, and Karr noted that it is. She added that these amounts are tied to the inflation index and then further
explained the budgetary process. It was noted that this is one of Rod Sullivan’s comments, that he believes they should raise this amount. Karr noted that the Board of Supervisors are salaried, full-time (75% time) positions, whereas the city council positions are not. Kubby noted the thought behind Sullivan’s request is accessibility to the office, that if someone is living on a lower income, it can be very difficult to put in the time necessary for such a position.
Chappell asked what a council position entails on a weekly basis, time-wise. Kubby responded that it is probably at least 40 hours per week, between calls, being out in the public, prepping for meetings, going to
speaking events, etc. Vanderhoef agreed, noting that 40 hours per week is a minimum from her experience. The low end of this participation
Charter Review Commission May 27, 2014 Page 3
would probably be 10 hours or so, if only meeting attendance were looked at. Vanderhoef shared what her experience was, that many of the councilors have full-time jobs outside of their positions. She, on the other
hand, did not and was able to be more involved in things both locally and at the state level. Sullivan stated that while the higher pay would enable people to be more involved, he would still question a higher pay for those who just do the bare minimum of the position. Kubby explained that the thought is to allow a different group of people to find it feasible to even consider being a councilor. Sullivan noted that in order to get to that number, he believes they would almost need to quadruple it. Kubby added that she is not sure that is a Charter issue. Members discussed this issue, giving the pros and cons of having a specific number listed in the Charter for councilor stipends. Sullivan noted the stresses of these positions and how they might lighten the load for those interested in serving. At the same time, the idea of raising this pay/stipend and how potential councilors could
abuse that was also discussed. Shaw noted that the history behind this amount had to do with serving on
the council not being one’s employment. The salary was set low due to this belief. He raised the question of whether raising this salary could cause entrenchment within the council. Members continued to discuss this issue, noting the changes that have taken place in Iowa City with its continued growth. Karr noted that one thing they have done over the years is start reimbursing council members for things like the United Way breakfast and other community functions. Schantz asked if staff could see how comparable cities handle these issues.
Kubby brought the topic back to a specific compensation for councilors, noting that small business owners can really suffer when they are trying
to run their business but are also responding to the public on a daily basis. Sullivan spoke to what Shaw had said about the raising of compensation doesn’t necessarily mean a raising of time given to the
position. Sullivan stated that what he is hearing from the conversation is that others would also like to look at a way to raise this compensation, but not to a level that would be considered a salary. Kubby asked if they
could get some information on what 25% of the poverty level for a family of four is so they can see just what that number is. Chappell agreed that it should not be more than a stipend. Shaw asked where this type of increase would come from. Karr responded that they would have to pull this from the General Fund at budget time. Shaw asked how this type of increase might affect other departments. Vanderhoef noted that at times of constrained budgets, the
council will typically not accept a higher amount due to the cutbacks having to be made. Karr stated that she will gather some comparable data from other cities, and also the 25% income number for the group’s
next discussion. She will also bring a copy of the City ordinance that deals with council compensation. Members continued to discuss this
Charter Review Commission May 27, 2014 Page 4
issue, mentioning a compensation board, such as the County has, becoming part of the actual Charter. Chappell spoke to the County’s compensation board, giving Members some history on this.
Next Chappell asked Schantz if he would read Section 2.06 aloud. Chappell stated that this is an issue he has heard about, and is one that comes up often – the direct election of a mayor versus the current selection of the mayor by the council. Also related to this would be the ‘powers’ of the mayor’s position and any changes or additions to this section. Chappell asked when the last time was that a discussion of this topic took place at a council meeting. Kubby stated that she believes it happened the year that she and Susan Horowitz were both running for mayor. Kubby had put out a public statement about what she thought the mayor’s job was and why she felt she was qualified to be mayor. This then led to a public discussion about the mayoral seat. Sullivan stated that he isn’t necessarily interested in changing how the mayor is selected, but when it comes to the district versus at-large seats, he questions if
someone who has been elected by a specific district should then become mayor. Members discussed the district versus at-large issue again, keeping in mind the mayor position and how it is currently selected.
Chappell continued, stating that what he dislikes about the current process is that it is so closed off. There is no public participation in the process at all. On the pro side, however, is the fact that the mayor is one among equals. If the process involved some public discussion, Chappell stated that he would be happier with the selection process. Vanderhoef shared per experience on the council, noting that she believes this could make the council more divisive. Schantz then spoke to the issue of
regional activities and how Iowa City should be in more of a leadership position.
Shaw then spoke to what changes might be needed in the mayoral qualifications if this were to become an elected position. For example, he noted that currently the council members are elected by the public, who in
turn chose one of themselves to be in the mayoral position. Karr noted that per State code, there are qualifications that need to be met in order to run for city office, whether council member or mayor. Chappell noted
that this has been a good first discussion on this item and he looks forward to more. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): None DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Chappell noted that they were going to start looking at dates for public forums. Karr noted that there was a general consensus for evening meetings. She noted that they can have these meetings at City Hall, and that they can be live broadcast or delayed. She added that the more exposure they get, the more the word will get out, helping to facilitate conversation. Karr
Charter Review Commission May 27, 2014 Page 5
suggested they look at a Tuesday evening in June. After some discussion, Monday, June 16 at 6:30 P.M. was selected for a public forum. Karr then asked if the group wanted a live broadcast or delayed. Discussion took place with people advocating for both avenues, and the majority
agreeing that a live broadcast would be favorable. Kubby asked if this meeting is just for them to listen. Sullivan stated that he believes it should be, that if they start a back and forth dialogue, the meeting could go on for some time. Shaw asked why they would have a live forum if they are only going to listen and not comment. This led to further discussion by the group, with a taped delay being agreed to. Schantz stated that he believes they need to give some idea to the public what it is they are reviewing and asking for comment on. Chappell stated that he will work with Karr on this. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month): June 10 June 24 July 8 July 22 August 12 August 26 August 28 ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 8-0, Atkins absent.
Charter Review Commission
May 13, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X
Anna
Moyer
Stone
4/1/15 X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 10, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 05/27/14 – Chairperson Chappell asked if there were any issues with the minutes. Chappell noted that he is questioning what is stated on the second page of the minutes, second paragraph from the bottom,
where Karr was responding to a question regarding council pay. Karr noted that this is how she responded, even though it was incorrect; and correct information was provided in this week’s packet. Vanderhoef then brought up an issue on the
same page, bottom paragraph, where she was talking about the amount of time she herself spent on council issues. The 40-hour minimum was her personal minimum, not necessarily what other councilors should do. Karr noted that she can make this clearer by adding, ‘From her perspective…” or “From her experience.” Vanderhoef agreed to this. Kubby moved to accept the minutes of the 5/27/14 meeting as amended, seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Sullivan noted that he had a conversation over the weekend with some of the organizers
regarding cameras and drones. They had talked to Sullivan about the logistical issues with having to get qualified electors on their petitions. He recommended that they write a letter to the Charter Commission to share their thoughts.
Karr stated a correction to the salaries mentioned at the last meeting was distributed; and additional information distributed gives some background history on the salaries, as well the
process. Dilkes noted the email provided by Commission Member Kubby, received from Caroline Dieterle, and stated she found the case referenced but has not had a chance to review it yet. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: Preamble – Chappell noted that in this section they have Schantz’s proposal still to review. Definitions – Chappell noted that they are still working on clarifying this section.
Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 2 Article II – Chappell then started the review where they left off, with compensation. He noted the information received from Karr on this subject. Atkins asked why they have a salary for council. Chappell
stated that it is basically a stipend for Members, one that after some discussion, this Commission thought the amount might need to be raised. Sullivan added that the concern was that those in the community who do not have very lucrative careers might not be able to run for a council seat due to the huge time commitment and low compensation. Financially it would be a hardship for many people. Stone stated that her take on the conversation was that the compensation be enough that most anyone could run for council, but that the amount would not be so much that someone would try to make it their primary job. Kubby added that they need to find that ‘sweet spot.’ Chappell agreed, stating that there does need to be some type of compensation for missed work, etc. Stone noted that council itself sets the ordinance for their compensation. She questioned if the Charter Review Commission should come up with another mechanism for this, so that the council does not set their own
compensation. Members continued to discuss this issue, agreeing that the amount itself should not be in the Charter, but that a formula or something to that effect could be set forth here. Karr noted that State law
prohibits councilors from giving themselves a raise – it goes to the next council in two years. Craig stated that to her it appears the current mechanism is working. She questioned if the Charter is the method, actually, to increase engagement in government. Section 2.06 – Vanderhoef spoke to this section, stating that after the last meeting she gave some thought to the topic of the mayor and how many terms this position should have. She presented the idea that there be no more than two consecutive terms for a mayor. This would open up the position more and might help alleviate some of the tensions that can arise within the council itself. Kubby noted that this might help alleviate the pressure that can build politically. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Schantz stating that at some point they need to decide if the selection of the mayor will remain with the other councilors or go to the
people. Chappell noted that they can have further discussion at any time on these types of issues. He would like to get through the Charter once and then they can return to those items that need further discussion.
Section 2.07 – Shaw spoke to Section 1.01 and how he believes it relates to this section – the City has all powers either granted or necessary --
questioning a power that isn’t expressly granted. He also questioned if these two sections shouldn’t reference the ordinances that are established by the City. Schantz noted that the Preamble grants powers to the City. Dilkes noted that the wording is from State law and she then touched on what Section 1.01 is saying, as well as Section 2.07. Chappell spoke to this, noting that his concern would be using “necessary” in this wording. He then asked if there was consensus to tentatively approve this section. Members continued to discuss their views on the use of the word ‘powers’ in this and other sections. Dilkes read what the State code says, noting that this section of the Charter
Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 3
comes from the State code itself. Members did agree to tentatively approve this section of the Charter.
Section 2.08 – Kubby read Section 2.08 to begin the discussion. She asked if these positions are typically appointed by the councils in other Iowa towns. Dilkes responded that in Davenport, for example, the city attorney works for the city manager. She added that the State code requires that a city clerk be appointed. Atkins questioned item D, if the council actually appoints all members of City boards. Dilkes noted that State law dictates the composition of certain boards and commissions. Members continued to discuss this issue, with tentative approval of this section being made. Section 2.09 – Schantz then read this section prior to the Commission’s discussion. Atkins asked if there were any legal standards that lay out how records must be kept. Karr responded that in many cases there are. Schantz noted that the Public Records law would apply here. Sullivan
asked if there is something elsewhere about boards and commission recordkeeping standards. Karr stated that this is not included in the Charter as it deals with the council. The bylaws and policies of the
boards and commissions are where you would find this information. Tentative approval was reached on this section, as well.
Section 2.10 – Sullivan read the next section. Members agreed that there was nothing they could change here as it is dictated by State law. Tentative approval was reached. Section 2.11 – Shaw read Section 2.11 prior to discussion. Dilkes noted for the Commission’s information that the only time you do not say ‘all members of the council is seven’ is when there is an abstention for a conflict of interest. She gave an example of how this could play out, and she also responded to Members’ questions concerning these types of issues. Schantz asked if State law requires super majority votes for any particular issues the council votes on. Dilkes responded that it does, and
she gave an example of when there is a protest on a zoning decision. She then responded to Members’ questions, further clarifying what this section is setting forth. Members agreed to tentative approval of Section
2.11 after some further discussion. Chappell asked that Article III be added to the next meeting agenda so
that they can begin discussion of it. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): None DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Chappell discussed the tentative forum schedule, noting that the original date (June 16th) will not work. He added that with everyone’s schedule, they have come up with either an August or September date. Karr added that this would give them plenty of time to get through their initial
Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 4
review of the Charter, and to have plenty of time to get the word out about the public forum. Kubby added that August might not be a good idea as so many community members are out of town then. Looking at September, Members discussed what date might work for everyone.
Chappell suggested they take an evening meeting and make it the public forum. After some discussion, September 23 was agreed to as a tentative public forum date. Chappell asked that everyone come to the next meeting with their schedules so they can then confirm this date. Kubby stated that she still believes they need to have a more conversational format at one of their public forums. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month): June 24 July 8 July 22 – Schantz noted that he will be gone this date. August 12 August 26 September 9 September 23 – corrected date; tentative public forum. Karr asked Members to let her know if their schedules change, and she will alert the chair of
possible scheduling conflicts. ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
June 10, 2014
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X
Anna
Moyer
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission June 24, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (7:35), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 06/10/14 – Chairperson Chappell noted that there was
no correspondence to adopt and then asked if there were any amendments or corrections to the minutes. Sullivan moved to accept the minutes of the 6/10/14 meeting as presented, seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: Preamble – Definitions – Article II – Chappell noted that they left off with Section 2.12 of the
Charter, and he read aloud this section. The discussion began with Kubby asking for clarification on the wording in this section. Dilkes noted that basically the city manager serves at the pleasure of the city council.
Decisions to hire, fire, discipline, etc., are at the discretion of the city manager. Dilkes gave several examples of how the functions of the city manager are carried out and the role that the council does or does not
play in them. The issue of the hiring of the fire chief and police chief was also discussed by Members. Dilkes responded to questions, noting that these are civil service requirements for the hiring of the chiefs. The discussion turned briefly to the use of “may” and “shall” throughout the document. Members continued to discuss this section, agreeing that the prohibitions in place appear adequate and that they would tentatively approve Section 2.12. Article III – Stone was asked to read Section 3.01 - Nominations to the group. Dilkes noted that the matters addressed in this section are completely controlled by State Code. The times have changes under the
Charter Review Commission June 24, 2014 Page 2
State Code to ‘not more than 85 days or less than 68.’ The State Code was also changed last year, according to Dilkes, taking the city clerk out of the election process for city elections and moving these duties to the
commissioner of elections instead. She suggested adding wording to this section that lets citizens know that what is set forth here is dictated by State law. Dilkes will work on the updates that need to be made to this section, due to the State Code changes, and will bring that back for Members to review. Chappell then asked if Members would like to have Sections 3.02 and 3.03 read. Dilkes asked if it would be Members’ preference to simply say that those items are controlled by State law, or ‘as provided by State law.’ She asked if it was preferred to have the actual numbers and percentages present in these sections. After a brief discussion, it was decided to show as much information as possible in these sections, along with the reference to State law. Kubby asked about the primary section, stating that she would like to have a discussion at some point about
eliminating primaries by having some instant run-off voting. She has a memo she can update that talks about the advantages of run-off voting for the system and to the people who are engaged in the election.
However, if they were to keep the districts as they are now, this type of voting would not work. Chappell asked Dilkes if she is aware of what other options there are other than the current primary system they have. Dilkes stated that she had this discussion at the last review, but essentially the State Code gives cities two options. The city may chose to have a run-off election, and a primary will be held unless a run-off is chosen by city council ordinance. She added that ‘instant run-off’ is different from ‘run-off’ in this instance, and State law pretty much dictates
how this will be done. Dilkes will gather more information on primary versus runoff for the next meeting’s agenda.
Chappell suggested they go ahead and read Section 3.03 as it does play into something they’ve already talked about. The Commission will come back to this section as they revisit the topics of districts and candidates.
b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): Article IV – Sullivan began by reading Section 4.01 to the Commission.
This is another area that is dictated by State Code, and Members agreed to tentatively approve it. Section 4.02 Accountability was read by Vanderhoef. This area again covered the city manager position. Chappell asked what the current city manager’s contract provides for as far as severance. Dilkes stated that it has been pretty standard for a number of years, three to six months is typical. However, she will obtain this information for the Commission. A
discussion ensued about this timeframe and whether there should be a ‘no more than’ clause added to the existing policy. Sullivan spoke to this, stating that he would not feel comfortable putting restrictions on this.
Members continued to discuss this section, more specifically the length of time a city manager could receive severance pay. Shaw asked why this
Charter Review Commission June 24, 2014 Page 3
section contains any reference to salary at all, questioning if this wouldn’t be a contract issue between the city manager and the City.
Atkins spoke to this issue, noting that most professional positions such as a city manager are using contracts to protect themselves. He further explained what protections have been put in place, both for the City and for the position. Shaw continued to express his concerns with this section, noting again that it is a contract issue and should be part of that instead. Karr noted that this section has not been updated for a number of years. Dilkes noted that staff will obtain the current manager’s contract for review, and also see what trends are out there in other communities. Chappell noted that they will start with Section 4.03 at the next meeting. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: None. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month): July 8 – Three people will be absent for this meeting. Chappell suggested they skip this meeting as they have gotten pretty far in their review. Others agreed that this would work at this time and this meeting will be cancelled. July 22 – Karr noted that she will not be present at this meeting but will have a representative from her office there. Atkins suggested they plan on having two- hour meetings, with others agreeing to start this practice at the July meeting. August 12 August 26 September 9 September 23 – tentative evening public forum. ADJOURNMENT: Shaw moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
June 24, 2014
Page 4
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X
Anna
Moyer
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 22, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Julie Voparil RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 06/24/14 – Chairperson Chappell noted that they have the Consent Calendar, including the minutes, to review, as well as
correspondence from four separate individuals. Dilkes requested a change on the first page where she was speaking about hiring of Police and Fire Chiefs and requested deleting “…these are civil service positions” and adding “there are Civil
Service requirements for the hiring of the chiefs.” Kubby asked for some clarification on the minutes, at the end where it states, “With others agreeing to start this practice…” where referring to two-hour meetings. She added that she does not recall this as being something agreed to for all of the meetings, just this meeting. After discussion, Members agreed that one-hour meetings are preferred, but that they can play it by ear as they move through this process. b. (1) Robert Givens; (2) Russell Haught; (3) Betty Dye; (4) Caroline Dieterle – Chappell noted that they can discuss the correspondence received if they desire. He noted that Haught’s letter speaks to term limits, and both Haught and Dye agree there should be direct election of the mayor. Givens and Dieterle are both advocating for changes to ‘qualified’ vs. ‘eligible.’ Kubby suggested that when
they receive such written comments that perhaps they should keep a ‘tally’ of sorts. This will help to show the Members the types of comments they are receiving, and if there are multiple individuals agreeing. Vanderhoef moved to approve the Consent Calendar as amended, seconded by Kubby. Motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections addressed: Preamble – none Definitions – none Article II – none
Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 2 Article III – Chappell noted that in their packet they have a memo from Dilkes concerning her proposed changes to Section 3.01. He asked if others had anything to add or any comments they would like to make.
Kubby asked Dilkes whether or not cities are required to make State-level changes. Dilkes responded that not with respect to these issues. Kubby stated that she was also reviewing the information received from Karr regarding the 10-year history of primaries, and requested more information on candidates who got more than 50%. Kubby continued, speaking to primary vs. run-off elections, and the possibility of eliminating the need for the second election. Members agreed to request from Karr percentages that each candidate received in that primary over the past ten years. Continuing the discussion, Kubby noted that the reason she is asking the question is if it is the standard in this community that nobody gets the 50%, then having a run-off system won’t actually be of help to them. However, if in general changing to a run-off would result in more than 1
candidate getting 50% such that a second election isn’t needed, then savings could be seen.
Chappell then steered the conversation back to 3.01 and Dilkes’ proposed changes. He asked if there is a consensus to tentatively approve these recommendations. Vanderhoef asked why the district seat ordinance was changed in 2005, but the at-large goes back to 1985. Dilkes stated that she would have to go back and review the reports to see why. Article IV – Chappell then moved on to Section 4.03 where they left off at
the last meeting. He asked Stone to read this section for the Members. After a brief discussion, Members agreed to tentatively approve this section.
Chappell then began a discussion of the duties of the city manager, Section 4.04. He asked Dilkes if any of these are part of the State code
or not, and she replied that the State code does not have this much detail. Dilkes responded to Members’ questions regarding items within this section. Under subsection (6), Members asked how the compensation
plans work for the City employees. Dilkes responded that the compensation plans are adopted by resolution of the City Council. She then gave an example of how this section of the article applies. Sullivan asked if they shouldn’t add that salaries are basically under City Council control, through resolution, and not city manager discretion. Vanderhoef added that the budget process also provides a review of each department’s salaries and compensation packages within City direction.
Moving on to subsection (7), Chappell asked if this is the one that changed in the last Charter review process. Kubby spoke to having a ‘buy local’ preference and if there is interest from others, she volunteered
to work on some language for this. Sullivan stated that he believes this is more of a city manager preference, not something that should be put in
Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 3
the Charter itself. Dilkes stated that there are a lot of legal hurdles to ‘buy local.’ Members continued to discuss the ‘buy local’ policy and whether it should be a part of the Charter. Dilkes gave some further background on
the City’s purchasing policies, noting that they are adopted by City Council resolution. Chappell then read subsection (8), where members questioned the use of the word ‘manage’. Dilkes noted that it does not necessarily mean actually handling the project, but coordinating the functions of the various departments – such as Planning, Public Works, etc., for a project. The discussion continued, with Shaw asking whom other than the fire chief and the police chief does the city manager appoint. Dilkes responded that the city manager appoints all of the department heads. No changes were noted in subsection (9). In subsection (10), Sullivan asked if State law dictates what records need
to be maintained. Dilkes stated that in some respects it does. Subsection (11) notes that it is prescribed by State law.
Chappell then moved to subsections (12) and (13) with no comments heard. After hearing subsection (14), Atkins stated that his only comment would be use of the word ‘business’ here. This would refer to the ‘affairs’ or ‘financial affairs’ of the City. Kubby noted that anything the City does is essentially considered ‘City business,’ and others agreed.
Chappell then read subsection (15), asking if there is a reason it only states ‘boards’ as opposed to ‘boards and commissions’ here. Stone
read what the definition is of ‘board’ within the Charter, noting that it does include boards, commissions, or other similar entities. Chappell then asked a question of Dilkes regarding whether there is a provision for a
process by which individuals can petition to have the City’s budget audited by the State. She stated that auditors are here every year.
Members continued to discuss this Section, debating the list of city manager duties and what should or should not be in the Charter. Schantz noted that this list seems incredibly detailed. Chappell then continued the review, going through the ‘shalls’ of this list. Vanderhoef noted that the Council sets limits on the amount of a contract the city manager can approve. Dilkes stated that the Council recently added a $150,000 limit for the purchases of commodities, for example. Members then briefly discussed closed session meetings versus public meetings, especially
when dealing with an employee, for example. Sullivan asked if others agree that this needs to be a detailed list. There was consensus among Members to tentatively approve this section.
Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 4
Craig then read Section 4.05 to the group. Members briefly discussed this, noting that a city manager can vote in an election, they just cannot run a councilor’s campaign or something along those lines. Members
agreed to tentatively approve Section 4.05. Article V – After Schantz’s reading of Section 5.01, Kubby noted that the word ‘citizen’ is in this section twice, which they previously discussed. Chappell noted that there are several boards and commissions that are
dictated by State law – Planning and Zoning and Board of Adjustment, to name a few. Vanderhoef brought up the Library Board, noting that often people would ask how this board functions. She asked if they need to mention those that are dictated by State law. Vanderhoef also questioned why it does not state that the boards and commissions are ‘advisory’ in nature. She added that this helps to let the citizens know that these boards cannot change things, but that they can make recommendations to the Council. Dilkes noted that not all boards and commissions are advisory. The Airport Commission is one that is not, for example. Sullivan asked Dilkes if the boards and commissions all have a charge or a document that states that they do. She responded that they
all have rules and policies that govern them. Sullivan stated that since they are all so different in nature, he believes they should leave the boards’ and commissions’ details out of the Charter.
The discussion continued, with Members then questioning if they don’t need to change the name of the CPRB (Citizens Police Review Board) in
this document where it previously was the PCRB. Dilkes explained how they are handling this name change in various situations. Members agreed that this should be updated in the Charter at this time. This led to a discussion by some Members of how the complaint system works with this board. Kubby suggested on #2, removing the word ‘citizen’ here – “to investigate claims of misconduct by sworn police officers” – that this might help reduce some issues. Chappell then asked Members if they agree with the removal of ‘citizen’s’ in #1, as well as in #2, per their discussion. There was consensus among the Members on these changes. Atkins questioned use of the word ‘minimum’ on subsection A – “…. the
following minimum powers”. He stated that this does not seem to fit with the rest of it. Chappell argued that the way he sees this one is if nothing else, the CPRB is going to do the following, noting they have a minimum
of duties that are assigned to their board. Chappell added that Council can always add to the powers. Shaw asked if it is necessary to reference this board in this way. Dilkes noted this was a referendum vote and is
required to be in the Charter. Atkins questioned if they shouldn’t consult with the CPRB on some of these issues. Chappell stated that it sounds like they have some definite changes to this section. He asked if there was consensus to tentatively make these changes. Chappell suggested that Karr check with the CPRB on these proposed changes to see if they have any feedback. Majority agreed to indicate the first paragraph as ‘A’ and change the second paragraph (currently ‘A’) to ‘B’.
Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 5
Chappell then moved on to Section 5.02, which he asked Vanderhoef to read. He questioned the 30-day policy, noting that it was probably adopted when the only way to advertise for these vacancies was in the
newspaper. With technology advancements, he questioned if this isn’t too long to wait. Members discussed this, with individuals on both sides of the issue weighing in. Sullivan stated that he likes to give the Council discretion, but not necessarily indicating a prescribed shorter period. Chappell suggested the wording of ’30 days or less’ or at the discretion of the Council. The discussion turned to requirements for advertising for these positions on boards and commissions. Dilkes stated that having no notice before filling a vacancy could lead to more problems than it would solve. Dilkes also noted that since the current version of the Charter was written a new requirement has been made – a gender balance requirement. This can add to the time it takes to find someone to fill an open position. Vanderhoef noted that there have also been times where after 30 days they receive no applications, and then have to readvertise for another 30 days. Voparil clarified that the Clerk’s office does not re-
advertise 30 days. Chappell stated that this is one area where he would like to hear from Karr, someone who is familiar with this process and has to deal with it on a regular basis. He would like to know if Karr thinks the
30-day window is limiting or causing too many vacancies to go unfilled. Shaw asked, for purposes of this Charter, who is a ‘citizen’ as it is referenced in 5.02. Chappell noted that this is that one item they are still watching throughout the Charter, and they can then revisit this later and decide how the term ‘citizen’ is being used here. Kubby asked if there is any value in adding the ‘gender balance’ piece to the Charter itself. Dilkes noted that the provision references State law so that stet gender
balance law applies automatically. Some conversation took place among Members regarding the gender balance issue.
Shaw read Section 5.03 at Chappell’s request. The question was raised whether or not the rules of boards and commissions are posted on the City’s web site. Dilkes noted that the City’s web site is undergoing a
major overhaul, but that this would be a good thing to consider having available there. Atkins asked if the Council’s internal rules are part of this, such as it takes three members of Council to direct that an item be
placed on an agenda. Kubby pointed out that this section is dealing with just boards and commissions, not the Council. Members then tentatively approved this section. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): Article VI – Shaw volunteered to read Article VI and its sections. Chappell began the review with Section 6.01, noting that Dilkes probably
knew the latest Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance. She noted that she has not read the most recent case in detail as she did not expect the Commission to get this far today. She added that she will,
however, read it prior to the next meeting. Chappell suggested she bring any recommended changes to the next meeting for their review. He then
Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 6
asked Members for their review on this section, where Council currently has set a limitation of $100 per election per candidate.
On Section 6.02, Schantz noted that the State changed Chapter 56 fairly recently and may be working on it yet again. He spoke to contributions for primary and general elections, and that the Supreme Court has gotten rid of most of these rules. Members briefly discussed the issue of campaign rules, with Dilkes noting that her review prior to the next meeting should answer some of these questions. As Members wrapped up their conversation, Chappell noted that they will be able to continue their discussion of Article VI at the next meeting and will have Dilkes’ memo to help answer questions. They will also begin review of Article VII. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Chappell noted that Karr wanted to speak further to this and how the Members would like to
plan their public forum meeting. He suggested they speak to this at the next meeting. Schantz spoke briefly to their September 23rd meeting, stating that he believes they will get more interest if there are some larger issues that the Commission has taken action on to the extent they are
able. Kubby stated that previously they had discussed this first meeting being one where the public brings issues of interest to them to the Commission’s attention. Then at a second public forum the group would have several areas of interest that could then be addressed more
specifically. Schantz noted that the election of the mayor has already proven to be an area of interest, at least from the correspondence received so far. Atkins suggested that this group have a discussion themselves about this issue. Chappell noted that the thought was to first get through a full review of the Charter, and then they can come back and have more detailed discussions about those areas of interest. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month): Dilkes noted that she will not be able to attend the August 12th meeting, but that she will prepare a memo addressing the Commission’s concerns on Article VI as well as the issue raised earlier about Article VIl. August 12 August 26 September 9 September 23 – tentative public forum. October 14 October 28 ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
July 22, 2014
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Anna
Moyer
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission August 12, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES APPROVED CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef (arrived 7:36) Members Absent: Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers Stone Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 07/22/14 – After the ‘Correspondence’ review, Chairperson Chappell asked if there were any changes to the meeting minutes. b. Correspondence – (1) Linda Schreiber – Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order and noted that in reference to the Consent Calendar, they have correspondence from Linda Schreiber, who is present to speak to the
Commission. He asked Schreiber to go ahead and describe what her proposal is. Schreiber addressed Members, noting that the League of Women Voters has a long history in Johnson County of hosting forums. These are public forums where questions can be proposed on a variety of current issues. Schreiber added that the League would like to be able to provide the citizens of Iowa City with an update, via one of these forums (suggesting November 17th), about the Charter Review Commission’s work. Chappell responded that currently the Commission is working its way through the Charter, doing a cursory review of each section. Those sections that will need further discussion are being tabled, while those that are basically
noncontroversial are being given a tentative approval. He noted that once this has been completed, they will then be ready to host several public hearing type of events. Chappell added that he would be happy to participate in anything that
the League would like to host, and he asked what other Members think of participating. He asked Schreiber for some clarification on what type of forum the League would like to see. Schreiber stated that the League is more than
willing to work with the Commission on whatever type of forum they would like, that they want to be part of the overall discussion of the Charter Review process. Sullivan added that he believes this would be a great idea, and that the League should decide if they want an informational type of meeting or if they want some back-and-forth dialogue to take place. After some discussion of just what type of forum should be held, all agreed that if the Commission is not done with their review by November, which is the date the League would like to hold a forum, they probably should wait to schedule this. Schreiber added that perhaps after the first of the year would be a better time to look at this again.
Charter Review Commission August 12, 2014 Page 2
Members continued to discuss this issue, questioning if they should do a co-sponsor event with the League, or continue as they had planned. Chappell then suggested that Schreiber speak to the League, letting them know that the
Commission is interested in some type of collaboration, but that they want to know more specifically what type of forum this will be. This could be either a Q & A or some type of interactive forum, for example. Chappell added that a November date may not be too early, that they really just need to know what type of forum to expect. Schreiber stated that she will speak with the other League members and will be back in contact with the Commission as soon as possible. Kubby stated that they should look at a November date that is after the elections, so that there is no confusion about any of these issues being on the ballot. Schreiber will be in touch with the Commission once the League has had time to discuss this further. Chappell noted that they also have correspondence from Member Mark Schantz that states he is working on some language for the Preamble and also a discussion draft for amendments that would provide for the direct election of the
mayor. Karr noted that Schantz was distributing this information to Members now so that they can discuss at a later meeting. Chappell asked that Members review this information prior to the next meeting, and asked Karr to include in the
next meeting packet for Members’ convenience. Atkins moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Stone absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Karr stated that information was included in the meeting packets regarding elections. This was requested at a previous meeting. Also included was the red-line version of the 2005 revision to the Charter to help Members see what changed from the last time to what they have before them now. She added that there is also correspondence from City Atty. Dilkes in the packet. Kubby spoke to why they requested the election information. The question was raised on whether the City could avoid some of the costs of a primary. She added that in looking at the information provided, it does not look like there is any savings to be had. Members briefly
discussed this issue. Chappell spoke to Dilkes’ memo regarding campaign contribution limits and that no changes
appear to be needed here. Kubby stated that she has some questions regarding Citizens Untied vs. the FEC, that the popular interpretation of this is that ‘money is speech, and you can’t limit speech.’ She then questioned how they can have a limit on contributions. Dulek
responded that it has to do with spending the money, versus giving it to someone – contribution versus expenditure. The question was raised as to whether the current amount is agreeable, especially since it has not been changed for the past ten years. Chappell stated that he is, that he believes limiting the amount is a good thing. Kubby stated that even with this limit, candidates have still been able to raise fair amounts. Next Chappell reviewed Dilkes’ memo regarding initiative and referendum. The first issue – the requirement that petitions be signed by qualified electors. There is no constitutional problem with this. Second, is the requirement in the Charter that petition circulators be qualified electors legal. The response from Dilkes was probably not, with her reasoning analysis suggesting no.
Charter Review Commission August 12, 2014 Page 3
Kubby stated that another questions was should there be any kind of qualification, such as residency. Chappell stated that they can either discuss this now or when they get to this section. He suggested that if Members have specific questions about Dilkes’ memo, they
should ask those of Asst. City Atty. Dulek at this point. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: * Additional Commission discussion of Preamble through Article VI – Craig asked at this point if they are open to going to other groups, such as what the League is suggesting. Chappell stated that he believes they should be open to speaking with or listening to anyone with interest in their mission. He believes the question becomes are they going to do this as a group or individually. He stated that he has not had any other requests. Karr stated that she has received several inquiries, where some groups are waiting for the initial review to be completed before they will be wanting to take part in some kind of conversation. Chappell suggested that the initial public hearing very well may help shape the major discussion from that point forward. Atkins noted that
if a neighborhood association, for example, wanted to share their feedback, one of the Commission Members could be assigned to attend a meeting and listen to what the residents have to say. Then the Member could report back to the Commission. * Article VII – Initiative and Referendum - Chappell then moved to Section 7.01A for review and read this aloud. He asked Dulek how much of this section is dictated by State Code. She responded that she believes it all to be organic as the initiative and referendum are really a City creation, but that she would have to double-check this. Chappell then asked Karr if Section 7.01A(3) has changed much – the definition, the measure, and the limitations thereof. Karr responded
that she did not believe it had changed much, other than the last noted change. Members briefly discuss the wording here. Karr added that at the last review this change was seen as more of a clarification than anything else. Chappell asked if anyone had any questions about the distinction between initiative and referendum. He gave Members some examples of an initiative versus a referendum – proactive versus reactive. Members discussed this issue, noting what a citizen can do if they are wanting
to change a law or enact a law. The conversation then turned to the issue of the signatories having to be qualified
electors, as opposed to eligible electors. Chappell noted that this is different from the requirements to change the Charter, which are set by State Code. Sullivan stated that he believes the current rules to be problematic in that they defy the spirit of the Election Day registration law, which he believes is meant to make it as easy as possible for citizens to participate in democracy. Members continued to address this issue, speaking to ‘eligible’ voters versus ‘qualified’ ones. This led to the discussion of residents who may not be U.S. citizens. Vanderhoef stated that she would be asking people this question, first thing, before having them sign a petition.
Craig spoke to the issue of getting people registered to vote, while attempting to gain signatures on a petition. She noted that this is a good way to get people more involved and to get them registered to vote. Sullivan noted that he too wants to see more involvement, but that he does not believe the current system is working. Karr spoke to
Charter Review Commission August 12, 2014 Page 4
the procedure her office follows in ordering voter rolls once the petitions are turned in. Chappell stated that he believes the same-day voter registration process definitely makes it easier now, getting people more involved and paying attention to what is
happening where they live. Sullivan stated that he believes it can still happen where you sign someone up to vote, and yet they still do not actually go out and vote. Chappell stated that at least if they are registered, they are saying they might vote – that there is a better chance they will. Sullivan spoke to the younger generation of voters and how he believes they approach it. He believes they need to make it easier for people to participate in their democracy, but that they also need to be aware of whom they are affecting in real terms. Chappell asked Karr about the petition process, more specifically how long before she checks the voter registration against the signatures. She responded that once the process starts you have a certain number of days to return it, followed by a set number of days to certify the petition, and then it is deemed either ‘sufficient’ or ‘insufficient.’ The petitioner is then allowed a second chance to get the required signatures, if needed. The conversation continued, with Members addressing the various issues at play here.
Being a university city, the student population is one issue, while the transient nature of many of the residents is another when it comes to being a registered voter. Chappell noted that with two Members absent today, they will definitely need to have this
conversation again, letting them weigh in on these issues as well. The conversation then turned to 7.01B(1), with Sullivan reading this section aloud to the Commission. Members briefly discussed this subsection, moving on then to (2). Questions arose over the time period, with Karr clarifying how the Council handled the sunset clause provisions. Kubby spoke to how this has come into play with issues such as the 21-ordinance. She gave examples of how a two-year time period is really not that long, adding that it should be at least a 4-year period. Shaw noted that people could, if
they wanted, use that to their advantage – having initiatives around the clock, knowing that it takes four years. They could then work hard to get a Councilor elected that agrees with them, continuing the initiative. Kubby stated that it is quite an organizational
task to do this, and that it would take a larger group to accomplish it. Chappell stated that he is open to more than two years, and Sullivan stated that a
Council term (four years) sounds reasonable to him. Vanderhoef stated that she is still a bit concerned about unintended consequences of such changes. Members continued to discuss two years versus four years, and how this might affect citizens trying to make
changes. The majority of Members appeared to find two years too short, but they struggled over a specific timeframe. Building a review period into the wording was also discussed as a possible measure. Chappell noted the meeting time and that they need to wrap things up. He asked if everyone was agreeable to stop at this point and begin with 7.01C at the next meeting. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): None
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Craig stated that she noticed in the information they received about the previous Charter Review Commission that they meet the day before and the day after their public forum. She asked why this occurred and if they should be considering something like this. Karr responded
Charter Review Commission August 12, 2014 Page 5
that that particular commission had finished early, so they decided to finish their overall report and end the commission’s time. She stated that they also used subcommittees to work on specific issues, and in general had a quicker turnaround time. Kubby stated that it would be a
good idea to meet fairly soon after the public forum, while ideas are still fresh in everyone’s mind. Chappell suggested that Members bring their calendars to the next meeting so that they might look at dates and get something pinned down. Karr noted that as they approach fall they can still use the second and fourth Tuesday meeting times, but that Members need to let her know if their schedules change. Chappell stated that he will not be able to meet for six to eight days after their public hearing date, as he will be out of state. Karr then asked if there were any comments regarding the approach for the September forum. Craig noted that on page 59, there needs to be an “A” in front of Community Forum. Also at the bottom of the page it says “board,” and Craig suggested this say “Commission” instead. Karr asked if Members want the September 23 forum taped or broadcast live. This was briefly discussed, with Members agreeing that they would prefer taped for further rebroadcast. Chappell asked that on the next meeting’s agenda, Karr add under “Public Involvement” a separate bullet for setting a tentative date for their second forum. Vanderhoef then asked if they could check with Public TV about listing at the end of their meeting two or three times that they know the public forum will be
rebroadcast. Karr stated that she will check into this, but that Public TV doesn’t always know the exact schedule on these types of rebroadcast. She added that they could add a graphic at the end of the taped broadcast with these dates. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month): August 26 September 9 September 23 – tentative public forum (proposed start time of 7:00 P.M.) October 14 October 28 ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Stone absent.
Charter Review Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyer
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission August 26, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 26, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes (arrived 7:45) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 08/12/14 – Kubby noted that she had one comment regarding the minutes. On page 2 it says ‘this evening’ and it was actually
‘morning.’ Regarding Mr. Carsner’s correspondence, Chappell stated that some of this has already been discussed – the election of the mayor. He added that they can discuss this if the Commission would like. Schantz noted that doing it
the way Carsner suggests would do away with the city manager position. Kubby stated that she has no interest in switching this form of government. She believes that if they directly elect the mayor they will have a stronger ‘weak’ mayor, which she believes would be a good thing. Sullivan stated that he believes they should wait and see what they hear about this issue during the public forums. Sullivan added that if they were to change the form of government, he believes that other parts of the City would have to undergo changes, as well. The issue of ‘eligible’ versus ‘qualified’ voter was briefly touched on, with Members asking Karr for some background on when this change occurred. b. Correspondence – (1) Tom Carsner Kubby moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended, seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Vanderhoef noted that a member of the public told her he had some comments to make and she invited him to this morning’s meeting, but that 7:30 was a bit early for him. Chappell noted that he had an email exchange with Linda Schreiber regarding a potential date for a meeting with the League of Women Voters. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: * Additional Commission discussion of Preamble through Article VI – Chappell asked if Schantz had anything to add to the packet of information he has already prepared for the Commission. Schantz noted that Carsner’s letter
Charter Review Commission August 26, 2014 Page 2
did raise some issues for further discussion, such as ‘full-time’ versus ‘two-thirds’ time, salary expectations, etc. Kubby asked if there are examples of a ‘strong’ mayor with a city manager. Atkins stated that Coralville’s arrangement is close to
this. He added that he is unsure if the mayor has veto power or not, but that you could shape this position however you chose. Kubby asked how Cedar Rapids’ government works, as far as the mayor’s position. Sullivan noted that part of the strength of the mayor is in the culture of the city, and that a mayor with a certain personality could make him or herself a strong or a weak mayor. Atkins noted that Cedar Rapids recently changes to a City Manager form of government from a Commission form. Schantz noted that around the country most larger cities elect the mayor, which is typically seen as a position of power in those communities. Shaw asked what constitutes ‘strong’ when referring to the mayoral position. Chappell responded that to him when you say a ‘strong’ mayor it means one that is doing what the city manager would otherwise do. The position would be seen as having ‘power’ beyond what Iowa City’s current mayoral position holds. Sullivan added that in his opinion, there are two ways to strengthen the mayor, by either adding responsibilities or take away from the
things that council members and the mayor shouldn’t do. He believes there is some room between going to a full and strong mayor, to beefing up the role of the mayor a bit, within the current infrastructure.
Schantz responded that you can think of the private sector where there is a board of directors and a chair, and in some organizations the chair has a lot of power and in others not so much. He added that to him the election is a somewhat separate issue, from how strong the mayor is that’s being elected. Atkins stated that he believes it’s important that they’re able to identify the political issues, which need to be a part of the ongoing debate, as well.
* Article VII – Initiative and Referendum - The discussion began with Section 7.01(C). Chappell asked Schantz to read this
aloud for Members. Chappell then asked Dilkes if she could briefly summarize what the importance is of these particular provisions. She responded that first of all it is to be construed broadly, and added that 2 and 3 are confusing to her, as
well. She explained that a referendum is something that repeals an existing measure, and there are time periods in which this has to be done. An initiative, in its broadest sense, is proposing something new. She explained some current
issues and whether they are referendums or initiatives due to deadlines being missed. Dilkes then responded to Member questions. Kubby asked if a group can come to the City Attorney with a possible initiative, along with their potential wording ready, would she give them an opinion on whether it would fly. Dilkes responded that she will have a general conversation with such a group, but as far as a formal opinion, she would ask the group to first file their intent to commence affidavit with the city clerk. Once the group is given an opinion, they can refile something different if so desired. Shaw asked for an example of what subject
matter would be excluded, and Dilkes noted that this is under ‘Limitation,’ under 7.01(B)(1).
Atkins stated that he found the statement “Scope Of Power” (C1) to be one of the more profound things about the Charter. He believes it states intention to confer
Charter Review Commission August 26, 2014 Page 3
broadly – here’s who we are; here’s how we want to do business. Chappell asked if there was any further discussion about these three subsections. Atkins noted that one of the things he noticed in his contacts is that people don’t
understand the difference between initiative and referendum. He believes there needs to be some way of clarifying that. Sullivan stated that 7.01(A) lays it out fairly clearly. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Vanderhoef suggesting this be added to the “Definitions” section, as well as Article VII. Karr stated that it was helpful to have the definition in the section when people inquire as to the procedure. Dilkes agreed, stating that putting this in the general “Definition” section would not make sense, as those are terms used throughout the Charter. Kubby suggested making a reference to Article VII in the “Definitions” section. Shaw asked if ‘qualified electorate’ needs to be defined again in this section, even though it is in the “Definitions” section of the Charter. Chappell stated that typically this would be done only if it were somehow different in this section than in the other sections. Dilkes agreed, stating that this would only cause confusion. Discussion continued about the difference between a referendum and an initiative, with Chappell stating that they can revisit this in
further detail later. Kubby suggested they look at the Citizens Guide, as well, to review the timelines shown there – the idea being to make things as easy to understand as possible without outside interpretation. Dilkes noted that some
petitioners are just not disciplined enough to follow the timelines, where others do so with no problem. Karr stated that once it is known whether they have an initiative or a referendum, staff sits down and recreates the timeline for that individual request. This basically gives the petitioner a custom timeline to follow. Kubby noted that in subsection (D), ‘qualified electors’ is very appropriate. Continuing their discussion of Subsection 7.01(C), Members asked for clarification from Dilkes about how existing contracts would be affected by the
language in “E”. Dilkes reported that most City contracts contain language on cancellation and termination notification. Chappell then asked if 7.01(C) is ready for tentative approval at this point, and Members agreed it was.
Moving on to 7.02, Craig read this aloud. Dilkes clarified that she has not seen a challenge to this being unconstitutional in the same way that the other section is.
It is very focused on the circulation process and would not automatically apply to this. Stone asked if Karr and Dilkes could briefly explain the process when someone wants to start a petition. Karr outlined the process of how an individual
could initiate the process, and noted that typically they are given Section 7.01 to read first, and then there is a one-page Affidavit that is completed and filed in the in the Clerk’s office to initiate the process. At this time there is typically a third appointment set up, where the Clerk’s office and the City Attorney’s office will review the documents and then prepare the individualized timeline for the petitioner. Dilkes added that once the Affidavit is filed, this starts the time period for when signatures must be obtained. Karr noted that it appears to be a cumbersome and time-consuming process but once laid out it is pretty
straightforward. Karr added that if it would be helpful to the Commission, she can bring in the forms that are used in the process. The conversation continued, with Chappell then asking if there was a consensus to tentatively approve
Section 7.02. Members agreed. Chappell then asked what other cities use initiative and referendum. Dilkes stated that they could look into this and see
Charter Review Commission August 26, 2014 Page 4
what data is available on this. Chappell asked if anyone thinks the initiative and referendum options are a bad idea and that the City should not use them. Vanderhoef stated that citizens need to recognize that this is a special privilege,
that it’s not a given everywhere. This is why she believes it needs to be a ‘qualified electorate.’ Atkins stated that he is uncomfortable with the word ‘privilege,’ that perhaps ‘opportunity’ is better. Sullivan stated that the fact it’s a privilege and comes from the Council is backwards to him. He believes that the ability to govern ourselves and decide what kind of ordinance to live under is a right and it should not come from the Council. It comes from the Charter. He added that having a Charter may be unique to Iowa City, but it should not be seen as a privilege. Dilkes stated that the philosophical debate is between representative democracy and direct democracy. Chappell reiterated that it is unique to Iowa City to have initiative and referendum. Schantz stated that it doesn’t fit in every situation, but that it appears to fit in Iowa City’s culture. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): None DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Chappell asked that they move on to this section, as he wanted to address a few points. The
public forum has been set for September 23 at 7:00 P.M. The Commission has one more meeting scheduled before the public forum. Chappell stated that he would like to go over what everyone’s expectations are for this forum, and what type of interaction they want to have with
those who speak. He added that it may actually depend on how many people show up to speak. If there are very few, they can engage in more back and forth. If 40 people show up, they would want to keep things timed so there’s enough time for everyone to speak, thus limiting how much interactions may take place. He stated that he thinks the Council’s five-minute rule would work here. They can always allow people to come back a second time, depending on turnout, time, etc. Shaw responded that he would find it very awkward if as a citizen he addressed the Commission and then received no response from them. Kubby stated that she would find it cold and unresponsive for there to be no interaction with speakers. Vanderhoef suggested the Chair try to perhaps group the comments around specific topics and begin the conversation that way. Chappell stated that he would have some concern doing it this way, that people might be dissuaded from joining in. He added that he thinks they need some interaction,
and until they see the questions they really won’t know what that is going to be. Shaw asked if they shouldn’t let the public know what happens after this Commission’s review, what they can expect from this process. Chappell noted that they can touch on that in his remarks, and Kubby
stated that doing so in an introduction could show what the process has been, how the next public forum may be more interactive, what the Commission’s timeline is, and what the process will be with recommendations to Council.
Schantz stated that he believes it would be a good idea if at the next meeting they identified four or five items where they have indicated some concerns and want to have further discussion. This would let the public know of some specific issues that they might become interested enough in to attend the meeting. Shaw asked where else the group might advertise to get the word out about this forum. Kubby stated that she sent out the notice that they received from Karr to people she knows that have an interest in government, and suggested that others do the same with people they know. Atkins noted that Chappell, as Chair, will most likely give a brief presentation at the frontend of the forum, explaining where the Commission is in this process. He also stated that most likely it would be a good idea to give some rules of conduct at the
Charter Review Commission August 26, 2014 Page 5
beginning, as well. Chappell agreed, adding that if someone feels the need to comment or ask a question of a speaker, they should be able to do so. The goal is to hear from as many people on as many issues as they can. Schantz stated that he would like to hear from people in the
community, what they like about Iowa City’s government, and what they think the problems are, if any. Kubby stated that the conversation is about the Charter, not the government in general, although they are related. Chappell stated that they will have to wait and see what type of comments they receive and deal with it accordingly. Karr stated that going back to Shaw’s question, she identified in her memo some of the things they’ve done in the past to publicize the forums. She added that how the forums are run, however, is entirely up to the Commission. Karr stated that she will have copies of the Charter available for the public’s review the evening of the forum. She asked if Members wish to have a 7:30 A.M. meeting that day, as well. Chappell asked if Members would like to set a meeting shortly after the public forum in order to review what they hear. After some discussion, Chappell asked if the meeting on September 9 could go until 9:30 to give them more time for discussion. Kubby stated that she would need to leave by 9:15 on September 9. Chappell suggested they try to complete their discussion on Section 7.03 so that they can finish up the discussion of initiative and referendum, prior to their September 23 forum. September 30 was suggested as a follow-up meeting to September 23’s
evening forum; and the morning meeting on September 23 will not be held. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month – 7:30 AM): September 9 – September 23 – evening public forum 7:00 P.M. September 30 – tentative special meeting October 14 October 28 November 11 (City holiday) November 25 ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission September 9, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 – 7:32 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw (arrived 7:38), Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 08/26/14 b. Correspondence – (1) Rod Sullivan – Chappell noted the correspondence received from Sullivan, adding that some of what is in the correspondence appears to be items brought up in his earlier correspondence. Kubby stated that
she would be glad to speak to Sullivan regarding instant run-off voting and why it cannot be done. Chappell also noted Sullivan’s mention of putting City offices on the general election ballot, and how this is dictated by State law. Also noted was the ‘qualified elector’ issue which the Commission continues to discuss; and ‘no confidence votes.’ Dilkes noted how the Court has dealt with a similar issue in the past. Chappell continued, noting that Sullivan also noted petitions that address State and federal law. He added that nothing stops people from having whatever petitions they want but the Council does not always have the power to change things at those levels. An increase in Council pay was another discussion topic, which the Commission has touched on briefly. Atkins moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Nothing.
REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be addressed: * Memo re Follow Up to Home Rule / Initiative and Referendum * Citizens Guide to the City Charter (w/timeline) * Initiative & Referendum forms Article VII – Initiative and Referendum – Chappell began the discussion by reading Section 7.03. The discussion began with Chappell noting that in the
Charter Review Commission September 9, 2014 Page 2
packet is the timeline that is part of the Citizens Guide to the City Charter. Vanderhoef stated that she noticed in the Citizens Guide that you don’t have to have the birthdate, and that many skip it. She wondered if the guide should
mention how the birthdate is used when a signature is illegible. Members continued to discuss this issue, agreeing that encouraging petitioners to add their birthdate can help in situations where a name is not able to be verified. Dilkes noted that on page 7 of the Guide it notes that a birthdate is not required, but is recommended, in order to help the City Clerk determine if a signer is a registered voter or not. In response to Atkins, Dilkes noted that most of the verbiage came from a model charter back when the first Commission began. Karr added that there have been clarifiers added to the Charter since its adoption, but that it has basically remained the same. The discussion turned to Section A of 7.03, qualified versus eligible. Chappell stated that they can discuss this further now if desired. He noted that they also have the issue of the number of signatures – 25% of the number of persons who voted in the last City election or a minimum of 2,500. In response to Chappell,
Karr responded that generally it’s been 2,500. Sullivan added that the 2,500 number appears to be from about 25 years ago. Karr noted that they had a 2,800 requirement in 2000, 2,900 in 1989, 2,700 in 1983, and the remainder
were around 2,500, but never more than 2,900. Kubby noted that one of Sullivan’s points that was not brought up is changing the timing of the elections to facilitate participation to be during even numbered years, versus odd numbered, like the State and federal elections. Dilkes noted that the timing of City elections is set by State code. Kubby asked if it would warrant making any changes to this percentage if they were to go from qualified to eligible signatures on petitions. Members continued to discuss this issue, questioning how the original percentage was arrived at to begin with. Sullivan noted that if they do make
some changes, it could make it easier to get the necessary signatures. Members continued to discuss qualified versus eligible, and whether this would
affect the percentage of signatures required for petitions. Karr clarified some information for Members at this point, noting that there were 10 initiatives and referendums in the City from 1977 to 2002. Of these 10, the required number of
signatures was 2,500 eight out of 10 times. The required number of signatures on the remaining two were 2,525 and 2,667. She clarified that the numbers she gave them earlier were the total numbers they got in, not the requirement. Kubby
asked what the 25% would have been versus the 2,500 minimum, and whether this benchmark is too high or just right. Karr stated that they could go back and calculate this, but her guess is that it would have been considerably lower. The question was raised about how many initiatives and referendums there have been since 2002, and Karr responded that she would have to calculate this, but that at least a half dozen come to mind. Caroline Dieterle, an audience member, asked if the numbers that are being
given are the successful signatures. Karr stated that she is referring to the initial filing, but that she does have both sets of numbers. She gave the following information: there were 10 from 1977 through 2002; out of those 10,
supplemental petitions were half of them; the five that were required to do this did do so. Dieterle stated that her question gets to the concept of how many
Charter Review Commission September 9, 2014 Page 3
signatures actually had to be gathered in order to get the number that would qualify for the ballot. Karr stated that she does not have this specific information with her. Kubby stated that she believes when they have such a high benchmark
– the 2,500 and the qualified voters – that it says a lot about Iowa City as a community, that there’s this second chance. Dilkes stated that they were only able to find one instance where those who submitted supplemental petitions did not meet the required number. Chappell then asked that they discuss the form and content of the petitions, stating that this section is pretty mundane. He asked if people thought there should be more, or less, on signature blocks. Craig asked Karr if her office, as the ones who review and verify, believes this information is adequate. Karr stated she felt the information was the minimum needed to verify the signatures, and provided examples where the information made a difference in counting the signatures, and noted the birthdate alone has been very helpful for her office. Karr noted that some people believe birthdate to be a privacy issue which is part of the reluctance in requiring this information. Vanderhoef stated that in looking
at the Guide, on page 5, where it states ‘what is the role of the City Clerk,’ she spoke to the Clerk’s office ‘accepting’ the petition. She asked if this isn’t just the cursory view, prior to a full verification of signatures. Dilkes clarified this further,
noting that the process begins once it appears the required number of signatures has been met. Chappell asked if Members could agree to tentatively approve B, the form and content, to which Members agreed they could. Addressing Item C, Chappell noted that this is the one that Dilkes has determined they need to change. She stated that the Commission needs to decide if they want this to be ‘eligible,’ but that it cannot be ‘qualified’ in this instance. Also needing a decision is whether or not to have a residency
requirement. This has come about due to a federal ruling. Members briefly discussed this issue, with the majority agreeing that ‘eligible’ works. Kubby stated that she would like to think about the age limit aspect of this.
Moving on to the timing issue – the timing to file an initiative and the timing for filing a referendum – Chappell asked what Members’ thoughts are. Kubby stated
that they began to discuss this earlier, that the two-year timeframe may not be long enough to know if an ordinance, for example, is functioning well yet. Members agreed to tentatively approve Item D and to hold off on E for now as
they contemplate the two-year timeframe. Revocation of Signature, F, was looked at next. Chappell stated that he likes how this is written. Members agreed to tentatively approve Item F. Chappell stated that they want to try and get through the next two and a half pages in the time they have left, and he asked if they wanted to continue reading each of the sections, or to instead do a synopsis of the next two pages. Members agreed that a synopsis would be agreeable. Karr briefly explained
what the process is once a petition has been filed and how signers are verified. Chappell asked if anyone had any changes they would like to see in this section.
Chappell then spoke to the issue of a petition being certified insufficient and how within two days the petitioner can request that it be reviewed by Council. He
Charter Review Commission September 9, 2014 Page 4
asked if the purpose of this review is to review the City Clerk’s decision. Dilkes responded that they have never had this happen during her tenure. Karr added that it is an appeal process that basically gives the petitioner another opportunity
to appeal to a higher body. Karr stated that in 1995 they added the ‘validity of signature’ section in order to better clarify names and to be less rigid in the process. Chappell asked if there were any more specific questions about Section 7.04. There was consensus from the Members to tentatively approve this section. Moving on to 7.05(A), Chappell explained that once a petition is found sufficient, the Council either considers the initiative or reconsiders the referred measure. If they fail to adopt it within 60 days, or fail to repeal it within 30 days it must be submitted to the voters. Atkins stated that this means that the proposed item must be placed on a Council agenda, as this would be the instrument to vote it either up or down. Members were agreeable to tentatively approving 7.05(A). Section 7.05(B) deals with the timing and Chappell read further, ‘Regular City
election or general election, more than 40 days after the expiration of a 60-day period, provided it is not filed too late.’ He stated that these are basically time limits on how long it takes to get on a ballot. Dilkes stated that they worked on
these 10 years ago in the review to tie these down. Chappell asked if the Council could call a special election for the purpose of considering an initiative or a referendum. Dilkes stated that they can with a referendum, but they cannot with an initiative. Members spoke to this issue, questioning Dilkes and Karr on the State requirements for elections. Looking at (C) briefly, Chappell asked if there were any questions on Section 7.05(C). Members tentatively approved this section.
Section 7.06 was reviewed, with Members asking for some clarification in the wording. This section, both (A) and (B) were tentatively approved.
Chappell then moved to summarizing 7.07. Craig asked if the Council can impose conditions that are lower or less stringent. Members reviewed the wording here, agreeing that clarification is needed. Dilkes agreed that this is a
good question here. Atkins asked why they have all of their election law in the Charter, instead of an ordinance or something that the Council can utilize. He asked if there shouldn’t be some sort of legislation that governs all of this.
Chappell stated that with initiative and referendum being so unique, you won’t find them in State law, first of all. He then gave some examples of issues that could arise where it is a good idea to have initiative and referendum where they are. Back to 7.07’s wording, Chappell read: The Council may not set except by Charter amendment conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum which are higher or more stringent. He asked if they need to change this, to broaden it some. Shaw questioned if changing the language would not keep the Council from being able to do this. Kubby stated that they could still
make a change with a Charter amendment. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows):
Charter Review Commission September 9, 2014 Page 5
Chappell then asked Craig to read Section 8.01, Charter Amendments. Kubby spoke first to this, asking why it has to be a special election here. Dilkes stated that you can put a special election on the regular ballot in those cases. Dilkes
added that much of this section is set per State code, so not much else can be done here. Schantz asked if the Council had ever acted to amend the Charter or place a Charter amendment on the ballot without a petition or a Charter Review recommendation. Dilkes said not in her memory. Caroline Dieterle, audience member, stated that they are forgetting about the part of the Charter amendment to make the Police Review Board a permanent part of the government. Dilkes explained that that involved a citizen petition and the question being asked was about amendments without a citizen petition. Members then tentatively approved Section 8.01. Moving on then to 8.02, Chappell asked Shaw to read this section aloud. The discussion started over whether the Council could take recommendations made to them and split them apart, where some would be done by amendment and some by election. Dilkes stated that they could do this. Chappell questioned
some of the subsections and how they are being numbered. Chappell noted that they have now completed their first pass of the Charter. He
asked if anyone had anything they wanted to discuss further at this time. UPDATE OF PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS: Chappell stated that he will be meeting with the Board of the League of Women Voters soon and will see what they have in mind. He will let them know what type of public meetings the Commission hopes to have. Chappell noted that the public forum is being held on September 23rd. The process is going to be basically the Commission listening and being informed as to what the public thinks about anything related to the Charter. Then there will be a special meeting on September 30th to review the public forum comments. Karr reiterated that they will be taping the forum for rebroadcast at a later time. She also asked if Members would like to have copies of all correspondence to date in the packet prior to this meeting. Sullivan stated that it would be a good idea, as would the tally of issues they have brought up – to date if possible. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Caroline Dieterle of 727 Walnut Street addressed the Members, stating that she barely knows where to begin to criticize the Commission’s discussion, or to add to it. She asked how many of the Members have actually participated by being a petition circulator for an initiative or
referendum. Dieterle stated Kubby would be the only Commission member with some conception of the difficulty that is involved here. Commission Member Craig stated she also had been involved as a circulator. Dieterle continued, stating that the City of Iowa City, along with its mayor and council type of government, are extremely resistant to change. She added that it takes typically two election cycles to make any real dent on the composition of the Council, and that everything develops from the Council through the City Manager. If you are unhappy with the City Manager, she stated it can take two cycles to get a Council that would be willing to make any changes. She reminded everyone that many issues come out at the grassroots level and then develop as time goes by. One issue that took well over 4,000 signatures, just to get the 2,500 minimum required, was the red-light camera issue. Dieterle
Charter Review Commission September 9, 2014 Page 6
noted how difficult and time-consuming this was. She continued to speak to the issues of petition circulation and the difficulties that arise. Dieterle stated that the State code does not require ‘qualified elector,’ 362.4 – that ‘eligible’ is okay there. She stated that the ACLU has
written a letter to the City, asking that they change this. Audience member Diane Henry stated that she concurs with what Dieterle said. She stated that Dieterle has shared the sentiments of many here in Iowa City, particularly people who are transient individuals in this area and yet want to be involved in the politics here. This population’s ability to be eligible versus qualified should allow them to be able to vote. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month): Chappell quickly reviewed the tentative meeting schedule, noting the September 23rd public forum. Karr stated that depending on the duration of the meeting on the 23rd, she can’t guarantee turnaround time for minutes before the meeting on the 30th. Looking at November 11, Karr noted that this is Veterans Day. The Commission agreed that they do not need to meet November 11, and can decide later if they need to add an additional meeting.
Craig brought up a late correction to the minutes. On page 3, towards the bottom, it says “intent to commerce” and should be “commence.” September 23 – evening public forum 7:00 P.M. September 30 October 14 October 28 November 25 December 9 December 23 ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 A.M., seconded by Stone. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
September 9, 2014
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission September 23, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION (Community Input Forum) SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 – 7:00 P.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and welcomed those in attendance. INTRODUCTION OF BOARD & BRIEF OVERVIEW: Chappell presented a brief overview of what the Commission’s charge is – to review the Charter and then make recommendations to the City Council for changes. The City Council then has
the option of either adopting the recommended changes as presented, or putting the recommended changes out for a public vote. Chappell continued, stating that the Charter Review Commission has been meeting every other week since May of 2014. The Commission
is reviewing the Charter line by line and discussing what – if any – changes they believe may need to be made. Chappell noted that this is their first public forum, and that the Commission is at the point where they would like to hear from the public. There will be a second public forum
later in the process. Chappell noted that some of the larger issues the Commission has discussed so far include the number of Council members there are; the split between at-large and district; Council salaries; qualified electors versus eligible electors; and the election process of the mayor. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: John Balmer, 10 Princeton Ct,, thanked the Commission for their review of the Charter. He stated that he strongly supports the Council/Manager form of government that Iowa City has had for many years. He noted that next year, 2015, will mark the 40th anniversary of the first election of a seven-member Council, of which he was a member. Balmer gave some
background on how the four at-large and three district seats came about. He added that he would encourage maintaining this aspect of the Charter. Balmer also spoke to the issue of how the mayor is selected, adding that this process has been in place for over 50 years. He gave
some background on this, noting that the idea is to have someone who is part of the team and can help the Council work together as a whole.
Bob Elliott, 1108 Dover St., also thanked the Commission for their work, noting that it is vitally important for the City of Iowa City. He too believes the Council/Manager form of government has served the City of Iowa City very well over the years. He added that he believes this form of government enables and furthers the concept of ‘citizen legislators.’ Elliott stated that serving as a member of the Council should not be a career, or even a part-time job. He believes that serving on the Council is a privilege and a responsibility. Term limits is one area that Elliott would like to see some changes to. As for the issue of mayoral selection, Elliott believes the current process has served the City well and should be maintained. Elliott spoke to the way the Council representation, at-large and the district, is set up. He believes this system works well for the entire City and should be maintained. Elliott then spoke to the issue of petitions and
Charter Review Commission September 23, 2014 Page 2
registered voters. He believes that if people do not register to vote, then he would not be interested to hear what they have to say.
Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., stated she has been active in city government issues since 1968. She explained that one of the most disturbing things to her about Iowa City when it comes to examining voter statistics – who votes and where they live; who appears before the Council; who runs for Council – is that they could be accused of having a government ‘of the elite, by the elite.’ She believes that as the city continues to grow and the major issues become more intense that this issue will become more of a problem. Dieterle believes that all of these traditions they speak of need to be looked at more closely and decisions made as to whether or not these things should continue. As for the selection of the mayor, Dieterle believes this position should be elected by the people. Speaking to the district and at-large issues, and who votes when, Dieterle stated that it gets terribly confusing to explain. She believes it destroys the intent of balancing district with at-large seats. Dieterle stated that the major issue for her, however, is the ‘qualified elector’ in the petitioning process for referendum and initiative. She stated that she believes the ‘qualified elector’ distinction should be eliminated. She noted the lengthy and involved process that one must go through in order to start a petition, giving
examples of what it is like trying to gain signatures for your petition. Judy Pfohl, 2229 Abbey Lane, stated that she has done a couple of petitions in the past, ones
for Planning and Zoning though. In regards to the citizens electing the mayor, Pfohl stated that she would be concerned about the increase of money for elections. She believes that this would also become an issue with at-large and district voting, and that she sees no need for changes in these areas. Chris Piker, 236 Raven St., stated that he has a very specific proposal. He would like to see the City move to four district councilors and three at-large. He noted that he lives on the east side of Iowa City, and when issues of walkability, for example, are brought up, it is typically about
downtown. He sees the need for this in the outlying neighborhoods, especially for students walking to and from the various schools in town. His proposal would be to have a new District D, composed of the central precincts. He believes this would give the city better representation,
and cover a smaller region.. Mike Carberry, 2029 Friendship St., stated he has been a resident of Iowa City since 1976. He
added that he loves Iowa City and thinks it is one of the greatest in the Midwest. However, he believes there should be more to a city than a triple-A bond rating. With Iowa City’s fast and continuous growth, he believes some changes need to be made. One change could be direct
election of the mayor by the people. Carberry believes the city needs a mayor that is powerful, and that the city manager position actually has too much power. Another change would be to the City Council. He believes they are greatly underpaid for what is expected of them and that this pay should be increased. With this increase in pay, he believes they could get candidates of a higher quality. Carberry also would like to see four districts and three at-large seats represented on the Council. He believes that a ‘strong’ mayor and a ‘strong’ council would be more responsive to the citizens of Iowa City. Regarding the ‘qualified elector’ issue in the petition process, Carberry stated that he agrees with what others have said – that this process
is really very undemocratic and should be changed. He added that he would really like to see Iowa City become more democratic.
Pam Michaud, 109 S. Johnson St., stated that she would echo what Mike Carberry and Caroline Dieterle have said this evening about the district and at-large seats. Continuing, Michaud stated
Charter Review Commission September 23, 2014 Page 3
that she believes Iowa City’s government is more ‘by elite, for elite’ than it should be. She then gave an example of a time that she was circulating a petition regarding a TIF issue. The developer in this situation evidently did not have the necessary downpayment for a project that
was being proposed. She shared her experience in getting her petition signed, often in 100-degree weather, noting that she obtained more than the required signatures. However, her issue was completely ignored by the Council. Michaud stated that the responsiveness was not there, and she questioned how this could be written into something like the Charter. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson, noted that one of the first things said in the Charter is that the Charter is here ‘to help serve the community.’ She believes this first sentence is very important. In relation to this, she believes that perhaps it is time to do some redistricting, that perhaps they need to look at how the current districts are set up. Carlson stated that she is most concerned about the southern part of Iowa City, where there is currently a lot of development. She wants every person in the city to feel that they are important, that their concerns matter. Carlson touched upon Council compensation. She noted how little the Councilors receive for their service, and how it limits the candidates who can run for Council. Carlson noted that over the years she has noticed that Councilors have less and less time to
spend on the City’s business and she believes this is not a good thing for the City. Carlson then asked, “Where do we want to be 10 years from now? And what is the best way to get there?”
Jim Knapp spoke first to an article in the paper, adding that he doesn’t think it is proper for the City to give money to people to build huge buildings. Instead, he thinks these issues should go to the community as a whole to be decided on. He also spoke about the water treatment plant and their pipeline in the area. He believes the Council needs to be checked and balanced with the community and that the community also needs to be involved in major decisions – not just the Council. Knapp also stated that he does not think the Council should be comprised of downtown business owners, as sometimes there are several on the Council at once. Knapp also spoke to his dislike of the dealings between the City and developer Marc Moen. He stated
that he believes the Council has too much power, and that the City does not go out and do what they need to do as far as enforcing regulations. He added that more of these dealings need to be in the hands of the public, and not the Council. Knapp then spoke about the meetings taking
place behind closed doors and that there are open meeting laws in effect to deal with this. He also spoke about the Peninsula development and the need for another access point.
Tom Carsner, 1627 College Court Place, stated that he has written to the Commission but wanted to elaborate further in person. The first issue he addressed was the ‘strong mayor’ form of government. He stated that the present Council/Manager form of government shows that the
weight of imbalance is on the side of the establishment, the status quo – the institution. This ‘establishment’ is hard to fight against, especially for those who are on the lower side of the imbalance of power. Carsner stated that he does not want to see this form of government take further steps to disempower those people on the lower side of the balance of power. This is why he believes an elected mayor, a strong mayor, is vital for bringing more power to the citizens. Carsner stated that he believes issues in the community need to be discussed more, not less, and that this is what a strong mayor would allow the citizens of Iowa City to do. He believes a strong mayor would have the backing of those citizens who voted for him or her, and
therefore be receptive to discussing those issues important to the citizens. The issue of Council’s time and input, versus City staff, and how the passivity and deference to the institutional weight, or the status quo, was touched on by Carsner, as well. Speaking to the
eligible elector and registered voter issue, Carsner spoke to his experiences in speaking to people about why they are not registered to vote. He stated that he believes that just because
Charter Review Commission September 23, 2014 Page 4
someone does not register to vote, they should not lose their ability to participate in government. He added that he is a strong believer in returning to the eligible elector standard for signing petitions.
Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., spoke to the qualified versus eligible elector issue first. She stated that she believes they should get rid of the qualified elector requirement. She shared an experience in getting signatures for a petition, stating that in order to get the 2,500 required signatures, they had to collect around 4,500 signatures. She suggested the Commission speak to the City Clerk to see what she does to verify signatures. She added that it’s very non-technical, all on paper. Hampel spoke to the weather issues, as well, noting how difficult it is to out in the inclement weather, attempting to collect the right signatures. She stated that the process is very long and difficult, and that the process should be easier so that the Council can hear from the public. She asked again that the Commission consider recommending elimination of the ‘qualified elector’ requirement for referendum and initiatives. Regenia Bailey, 310 Reno St., the Commission for their work. She stated that she feels very strongly about how the district representatives are elected. She shared that she herself was a
District C representative, and that she spent time explaining Iowa City’s system. Bailey continued, stating that she believes the current system works well for Iowa City, that the Council comes together to work as a community. She has concerns about changes being made to this
system. Bailey then spoke to the directly elected mayor issue. She added that this has some appeal, but she questioned if people would really get what they want. She believes the current make-up of Council creates a team effort. Bailey stated that she believes the current system is a great one – very community – and she encouraged the Commission to keep things the same. Judy Pfohl, 2229 Abbey Lane, spoke to how her son was involved in the Wisconsin recalls and some of the practices that took place, such as people saying ‘sign this petition to keep a mall from being built in your area,’ when in fact what people signed had nothing to do with that. She
also spoke about how issues in California can get on the ballot too easily, and she gave some examples.
Alexsey Gurtovay, an 18-year resident of Iowa City spoke to the issues that have been discussed and how it is easy to take for granted what is already written in the Charter and to be skeptical about making any changes. Gurtovay spoke to the petition issue, noting that changes
to the City Code are what require the correct electors to sign. He added that it is easier to get a petition signed to change the Charter than it is the Code. Kubby moved to accept correspondence from Judy Pfohl, Harry Olmstead, Carol deProsse, Martha Norbeck, and Chris Piker. Sullivan seconded the motion. Motion carried 9-0. Chairperson Chappell noted the televised playback times for tonight’s forum: Saturday at 5:00 A.M.; Sunday at 5:00 P.M.; Monday at 1:00 P.M.; Wednesday at midnight and 9:00 P.M.; and Friday at 8:00 A.M. The playback will also be available on the City Channel 4 web site, available Saturday.
ADJOURNMENT: Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
September 23, 2014
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 09/09/14 and 9/23/14 – b. Correspondence – (1) Chris Piker; (2) Sonia Ettinger; (3) Paul Kelly (late handout) Karr noted that they received a late handout today, a letter from Paul Kelly. She added that they can amend the Consent Calendar to adopt this, if the Commission is okay with that. Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Kubby seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. City Clerk Memo – future playbacks for Community Input Forum – Karr
noted that her memo reiterates what was stated at the end of the public forum, which are the playback days/times for the Commission’s recent forum.
b. Chappell reported on his visit with the Board for the League of Women Voters. He shared what the Commission had been doing thus far, and he asked them to think about what type of interaction they are looking for. The correspondence he
received back shows that they want to have a forum on the Charter, both informative and to have a discussion on some of the bigger issues. Chappell said the League forum is being scheduled for November 19th at 7:00 P.M., and the League would like some of the Commission Members to attend. Karr reminded Members that if five or more attend it would need to be posted as a meeting. Karr will add this to agenda items so the Commission can discuss it further at the next meeting. Shaw stated that he is going to be meeting with a Council Member regarding his work on this Commission, and he asked if this is okay. Chappell stated that this is no problem and that whatever information Shaw would like to share with the Commission is okay, as well.
Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 2
REVIEW PUBLIC FORUM INPUT OF SEPTEMBER 23: Correspondence received and accepted:
* Judy Pfohl * Harry Olmstead * Carol deProsse * Martha Norbeck * Chris Piker Chappell stated that there is a relatively light agenda today, as it is mainly to review the public forum input, including correspondence received thus far. He asked Members how they would like to start their review this evening, noting that there were some clear issues coming out of the forum. Chappell stated that he thought the forum went well, with about 24 in attendance. Kubby noted an interesting observation – three of the four people who said, ‘It’s working great; don’t do anything,’ were former elected officials. Kubby stated that one thing that was brought up, but that the Commission hadn’t yet discussed,
was to have four districts and three at-large. She stated that she understands the motivation behind this thinking, but that she is unsure if it would function very well. She questioned if those four districts could then become the majority players when issues arise. Vanderhoef stated that
she would be concerned if the districts became more than the at-large, as those representatives could ‘forget the big picture’ and think only of their district. She added that you have to look at the overall picture of the city as a whole. Sullivan asked how often the district maps are redrawn. Karr responded that they are done after the new Census information is provided every 10 years. She briefly explained how state and federal mandates play into this, as well. Chappell asked if it occurs very often that a councilor will go from an at-large to a district, or vice versa, either by redrawing boundaries or individual choices. Karr noted that it does not happen very often, but that it has happened recently with Terry Dickens switching from At-large to
district. Sullivan spoke to the last election, noting that the ‘quasi-districts’ can be confusing. There were six candidates running for three seats, but in two separate races. Vanderhoef asked Sullivan for some clarification. He stated that to him it is superfluous to have this other race, as one seat is at-large and the other is a district seat. Members agreed, after further discussion, that the
theory of the current Charter is that everyone on the Council will represent everyone in the community. Chappell stated that he would question what is gained by adding another district, if the ultimate result would be achieved. Sullivan responded to Chappell’s observation about
districts, stating that he doesn’t believe district size and ratio of representation is a concern. Craig agreed, stating that the city really is small enough that with three districts, mixed with the four at-large, the representation appears to be very fair to her. She sees no reason to change how this works. Discussion continued, with Members weighing in on the issue of fair representation throughout the community. Vanderhoef noted that in her experience the people who are satisfied with how things are going do not come to the meetings to say reiterate this. Instead it is the people who
are wanting change that more frequently come and voice their objections or ideas. She added that this is a good thing as it gives the Council new ideas to consider. Kubby then asked how keeping or changing the Charter around districts help people feel more heard, even if their ideas
are not agreed to. Vanderhoef stated that she herself is not interested in changing the number of districts at this point. She believes the system works as well as it can right now. Chappell
Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 3
stated that if a change were to be made, he would never support having the majority be districts. He believes the majority of the Councilors must have the best interest of the entire city in mind.
Shaw spoke to the issue of how citizens can feel more connected. He asked if a change to the process in elections, such as what Sullivan was talking about earlier, would make a difference. Getting rid of the primary elections, he suggested, might make things clearer for voters. Kubby stated that she believes people will feel more engaged and heard when they have their district person on the Council. She believes this could bring about greater participation. Members continued to discuss the issue – district versus at-large. Vanderhoef asked if there has ever been an at-large candidate from the west side of the river. She added that without a district, she wonders about the growth on the west side and whether this could become an entire district. Karr shared some history with the Commission, noting a couple of the previous Councilors who lived west of the river. Chappell noted that at the next public forum, this should be one of the issues they put forth for discussion. Another issue that has been heard several times is the selection of the mayor and whether this should be done through a direct election by the citizens. The issue of a ‘stronger
mayor’ was heard at the public forum, as well. Chappell stated that he himself has no interest in the ‘strong mayor’ approach. He believes this would mean a change in the form of government they currently have. Sullivan stated that he believes there is a way to go this direction without
having to make major changes. He believes the election of the mayor, however, is independent of the ‘strong mayor’ issue. Vanderhoef asked if there would be interest in something like what Coralville has – the mayor is non-voting, unless there is a tie. Craig stated that she believes the mayor is currently elected by the citizens. They voted the Councilor in, and then the entire Council – all directly elected – chooses the mayor. Shaw asked how many times a newly elected Councilor has been elected mayor by their peers. No one recalled any newly elected members serving as Mayor. He asked if the Councilors
decide who would best lead them, or if it is the campaigning or theater for it that gets the selection made. Kubby responded that sometimes it is the least offensive person, not necessarily the person who will best lead the group or lead the city. Chappell asked if any of
the group are interested in changing to the ‘strong mayor’ form of government. With no interest shown, he stated that the real issue for their discussion is the current system of the Council selecting the mayor versus direct election by the citizens. Members discussed these issues,
with Dilkes suggesting the group take a look at cities that do have direct election of a ‘non-strong mayor’ and see how this form works. Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, and others were given as examples.
The discussion continued, with Members noting their opinions on the mayor issue. Citing other cities and how their forms of government appear to be working, examples were given of how an elected mayor could benefit the city. Chappell agreed with Kubby that he would like to see more transparency regarding how the mayor is currently elected. He questioned if this would increase confidence in their current form of government or not. Shaw asked how long the actual process takes, if one of the Councilors states that they want to be mayor or just what happens. Kubby stated that typically immediately after the election the talking begins. Shaw asked if that
process could be incorporated into a Council meeting or two, one where the public is in attendance. He added that an announcement could be made as to when the ‘campaigning’ process for mayor begins, when the process ends, and how it is going to take place, which he
believes should be in a public forum. Sullivan suggested making nominations for mayor to be made at a previous meeting than the meeting where the vote takes place. This would give at
Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 4
least two weeks for the public to respond. In response to questions, Dilkes stated that you could always make the first deadline very soon after the election. This way if someone has an interest in being mayor, they must declare by that specific day after the election. Karr
responded to questions by stating that the swearing in of new Councilors occurs right after the election canvas is final; and typically new members are sworn in way ahead of taking office January 1. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Vanderhoef noting that one of Iowa City’s previous mayors told her that he did not know he was going to be mayor until he was walking into Council chambers that day. This was because two others on the Council really wanted to be mayor, and this individual was chosen instead, even though he had not stated his interest. Shaw noted that broadly speaking, the process of how a mayor is elected in Iowa City is not transparent, and by having a declaration of some sort regarding this process, the public could be better informed. The discussion continued, with Members discussing what the mayoral position does in general and what influences they may have overall. Kubby noted that this position should have more responsibility than a regular Councilor. Chappell stated that for him, not every Councilor would make a good mayor. They may make a good Councilor, for example,
but he doesn’t believe everyone has what it takes to be the mayor. Dilkes stated that there is not much in the current Charter regarding the mayor’s duties. It states that the mayor is a voting member of the Council, an official representative of the city, and presiding officer of the Council
and its policy spokesperson. She added that currently the Council has to have at least three Councilors agree to an issue in order to put it on the work session agenda. Members agreed that this is a ‘practice’ issue of how the Council handles business, not a Charter issue. Kubby stated that not everyone can facilitate meetings well and keep a group, such as the Council, on task. Chappell stated that he has some concerns when it comes to directly elected mayors, and that they may end up with longer-serving mayors. He noted that in the last decade, mayors have
tended to serve two to four years. He questioned if someone in this position wouldn’t become more entrenched in the position. Atkins asked if there shouldn’t be term limits of sorts, such as you can serve no more than four consecutive years. He added that reasonable duties and
responsibilities would need to be spelled out and available to all of those interested in being mayor. Kubby stated that even if they kept the process the same, they could still do this. It would make Councilors consider whether they believe they are qualified to fulfill these duties.
Karr stated that she wanted to follow up with an observation that Craig made, in regards to having all seven Councilors declaring their desire to be mayor. You could also end up with four
of the seven expressing interest, and then a few weeks later end up with nobody interested in the position and withdrawing. Shaw stated that his take on this is with the exception of clearly distinguishing the duties of the mayor, the mayoral position is not given any further ‘power’ than currently exists in the Charter. The issue of transparency and the citizens understanding the process of how the mayor is selected is what is important. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to have more discussions about how many terms a mayor can have. She believes it feeds into some of what Kubby has said, that some people could be
prone to stay on Council longer in order to push their own agenda. She believes no more than two consecutive terms would be appropriate, but that there needs to be others in the position in order to keep things fresh. Members briefly discussed a couple of mayors with extended terms.
Dilkes noted that she pulled up the Cedar Rapids’ Charter and that their mayor, who is directly elected, has significantly more responsibilities than the Iowa City Charter shows for its mayor,
Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 5
including representing the city in inter-governmental relationships, appoint with the advice and consent of the Council members of citizen advisory boards, present an annual message, appoint the members and officers of Council committees, and serve as an ex officio member
thereof, assign Council agenda items subject to consent of Council, coordinate economic development activities of the city, and then perform various ceremonial tasks. Karr noted that the mayor’s proclamations are the only thing that are directly from the mayor himself. Atkins noted that the current Charter states that a mayoral appointment will be made ‘immediately,’ so the framework is already established in regards to this issue. REVIEW CHARTER: Chappell stated that as far as moving forward with their review, they can either go back through the Charter and further discuss those issues that arose. Or they can go through the Charter, topic specific, and have further discussions on those. Sullivan stated that he would trust Chappell and Karr to come up with those items that have arisen through the Commission’s review and to bring those back for further review. Shaw stated that the majority of their time should be spent discussing the bigger issues that have arisen, as this will take several
meetings. He believes this will get them further along, versus a slow read through the entire Charter again. Kubby stated that today’s conversation, for example, was fruitful as they focused on one or two major issues. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:30 AM unless specified): Karr suggested a review of the schedule for the remainder of the year. Vanderhoef noted that she may be unable to attend the October 14 meeting; she is still awaiting further word on a possible conflict. Craig stated that she is waiting to hear about the same event. Karr noted that November 11th was dropped as it is Veterans Day (City holiday). Shaw noted that he wanted to speak to the starting times of the meetings. He wanted to know if they could start a bit later – 7:45 or 8:00. Chappell suggested they come to the October 14th meeting with calendars and have these conversations at that time. This way they will have a better idea of where they are
and where they need to be. Karr noted that the sooner they know when the next forum will be, the better, as they need to reserve a room.
Next meetings: October 14 October 28
November 25 December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent.
Charter Review Commission
September 30, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission October 14, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2014 – 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw (7:38), Anna Moyers Stone (7:42), Adam Sullivan Members Absent: Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Dennis Bockenstedt, Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:31 A.M. PRESENTATION ON LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX & THE CITY BUDGET:
The meeting began with a power point presentation by Dennis Bockenstedt, the City’s Finance Director, on the local option sales tax (LOST) referendum and the City budget. He explained that a committee was formed following the budget process last year to review the feasibility of a local option sales tax and then to make a recommendation on whether or not the City should pursue this. The committee also looked at the City’s current services and existing resources, while reviewing what the best uses would be for a local option sales tax; and suggested ballot language for such a referendum to the City Council. The discussion continued, with Bockenstedt fielding questions about how the City can go about securing additional revenue. He noted that the thing about a sales tax is it generates a lot of
revenue, yet has a lesser impact than some of the other options. Karr noted that if Members have any further questions they can contact Bockenstedt directly CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 09/30/14 – Chappell noted that the only thing he saw in the minutes was a reference to the meeting being in the ‘evening,’ when in fact it
was 7:30 in the morning. Kubby moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Sullivan seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0, Vanderhoef absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. League of Women Voters Forum – Chappell noted that the forum will be held on Wednesday, November 19, at 7:00 P.M. The League has asked that some of the Members be present at the forum. This forum is intended to inform the attendees about what the Charter is in general and also to have some level of
Charter Review Commission October 14, 2014 Page 2
discussion regarding whatever topics come to the fore. Chappell stated that they need to decide who is going to attend, adding that they won’t want more than four in attendance due to meeting laws, etc. Schantz, Atkins, and Kubby
volunteered to attend. Kubby stated that Chappell should attend, as well, since he is the Chair of the Charter Review Commission. Atkins asked why they couldn’t all attend and call it a regular meeting. Chappell stated that if there is a strong desire they could do this but it would be considered a Charter Review meeting. Sullivan stated that he is inclined to keep it a minority of the Commission. Chappell stated that he will talk to the League further to see what their feelings are on this and they can revisit the issue at the next meeting. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Term limits – Chappell began the discussion with the term limit issue. He noted that they did have some discussion about this when they discussed the mayoral position and whether there should be some term limitation there. He asked what Members’ thoughts are on this issue. Kubby spoke to her feelings about these limits, noting that she is somewhat open to this. Atkins noted that he has never been a fan. Schantz
stated that he does not feel strongly against it, but that it seems like a solution in search of a problem. Others weighed in, agreeing that term limits typically come into play when people are unhappy with who is currently in office. Kubby noted that Vanderhoef had
brought up the issue of a directly-elected mayor and the need for term limits in that scenario. At this time there does not appear to be any interest on the part of the Commission to suggest changes here. Chappell noted that if Vanderhoef would like to
address this further upon her return, they can do so at that time. b. Compensation of council members – The issue of compensation for council members was discussed next. Chappell noted that the Charter does not set the specific amounts, the council itself does. Kubby noted that she believes there should be something in the Charter so that councils can be relieved of this burden. She added that
the compensation should match what is expected – meetings, community events – in terms of the time spent on council events. Shaw stated that he has a note in regards to a conversation that took place back in May that made reference to raising the compensation to 25% above the median income. He stated that he believes it came about as they discussed how they could get more citizens involved. Shaw asked what, on average, is the amount the council members receive. Chappell recalled that it is
$5,000 per council member, with the mayor receiving $7,000. Sullivan stated that one of his concerns is that the compensation keeps out those in the community who cannot afford to leave their job for an afternoon function or meeting. He believes it would be an
undue burden for a low-wage worker. Craig asked if Sullivan believes a higher compensation would actually allow a low-wage worker to leave their job. The conversation continued, with Members weighing in on the issue. Shaw noted that
serving on the City Council is not for the faint of heart. He added that those who have the mental and financial wherewithal are going to be the ones who serve. He does believe, however, that the compensation and/or financial reimbursements should be raised, in order to help ease the burden of the time spent on council duties.
Atkins agreed that the amount should be raised. He noted that if it were part of the Charter, it would be revisited basically every 10 years when the Charter is reviewed. Schantz stated that he is in favor of doing something, that he believes having it be part of the Charter, however, may be a bit tricky. He stated that one way to do this is to come up with a number they believe is right. Another way is to have an external
Charter Review Commission October 14, 2014 Page 3
committee of community members who would deal with this issue. A third way would be to set the floor in the Charter with the current process, understanding that it might lag behind in a 10-year period. Atkins stated that he really doesn’t believe it to be that big of
a deal. He added that in all of his years with the City, he never had anyone in the community complain about the council’s compensation amounts. Members continued to discuss the compensation issue, with Kubby again stating that she believes it takes the burden off the council if they put this in the Charter. Chappell stated that he isn’t sure he would support raising the compensation amount as he is unsure what it should be. He added that he might be, if he were convinced that raising it to some reasonable amount would encourage otherwise underrepresented residents to run for council. Chappell asked if there was an interest in creating a subcommittee for this, who could review the issue and then come back to the Commission as a whole with a recommendation. Shaw asked what a city comparable to Iowa City does with their council and mayor compensation. Chappell asked what cities are used in the collective bargaining. Karr noted that they use cities like Ames, Des Moines, Davenport, and Council Bluffs. She added that staff can gather this information for the Commission to help them in their
review. Chappell stated that this would be helpful. He also asked if staff can find out how the council members in these other cities are classified – are they part-time, for example. After a brief discussion, Members agreed that they would like to revisit this as
a group at a future meeting. The conversation continued on what other governmental entities do with salaries and classification of employees/councilors. It was noted that the School Board Members do not receive any compensation. c. Use of word “citizen” – Chappell noted that Dilkes had brought up some issues when they talked about ‘citizen’ versus ‘resident’ early on in their conversations. Dilkes stated that she had looked at definitions of ‘citizen’ and she remembers coming across several that spoke about ‘in the context of a city,’ that you don’t have citizenship of a city – you are a resident of a city. She stated that they certainly could define ‘citizen’ as
‘resident’ in the Charter and then keep it as citizen. Craig stated that she would prefer this, that she does not like the word ‘citizen’ in the Charter. She believes if they do not remove the word ‘citizen’ from the Charter that they should then define it clearly as being
a resident. Schantz stated that he typically uses the word ‘resident.’ Atkins stated that he uses ‘citizen’ as he likes the word citizenship. Dilkes stated that one thing that might help them in doing a definition of ‘citizen’ as being a resident is they can then continue
with a citizenship quality. Karr asked if Members would like for her to do a search and find in the Charter document that will highlight ‘citizen,’ as this will help give them some context to what they are considering.
Kubby spoke briefly to adding a definition of ‘corporation,’ which would disengage corporations from being people in the City’s Charter, and in the compensation section say that people and corporations have this limit. She believes this will clean up the issue for many in the community. Sullivan stated that he understands why it sounds bad in this day and age, but that corporations are legal people, as are political parties and associations, committees, and other legal entities. He believes this could cause problems. Dilkes stated that one issue she sees with this is whether or not you would
want a corporation to be a person is dependent on what you are talking about. Chappell asked Karr to also do a search and highlight for the word ‘person.’ He added that this can help them in further discussions regarding ‘corporations’ and those issues
surrounding it. d. Preamble and definitions –
Charter Review Commission October 14, 2014 Page 4 e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) – PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): October 28 – Chappell asked if everyone wanted to add a make-up meeting in place of the Veteran’s Day holiday meeting that was cancelled. Shaw asked if they could change the start time a bit. After some discussion, Members agreed that 7:45 A.M. would work, with meetings going to 9:00 A.M. In place of the November 11 meeting, Members agreed that Monday, November 10, at 7:45 A.M. works as a make-up meeting. Schantz noted that he will be unable to attend the October 28 meeting. November 10 November 25 December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 8-0, Vanderhoef absent.
Charter Review Commission
October 14, 2014
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 2014 – 7:45 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Adam Sullivan (arrived 7:50), Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers-Stone Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 10/14/14 – Chappell began the discussion of the
October 14 meeting minutes by stating that he noticed on page 2, at the top, second sentence from the end of the first partial paragraph, where Sullivan was speaking. It states ‘majority’ instead of ‘minority.’ Kubby moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Shaw seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0, Schantz, Sullivan, and Moyers-Stone absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. League of Women Voters Forum – Chappell noted that he was in contact with Linda Schreiber again, trying to get more specifics on what they are looking for at their forum. He noted that she thought the format would involve three or four Charter Review Members. He reported that Schreiber stated that in addition to
individual introductions, they would like to see a summary of the Charter history and timeline. Chappell continued, noting that typically the League likes for their forum to be ‘their’ forum, which is normal for these types of meetings. He stated
that they do need to decide who is going to attend the forum. Members began a discussion on this issue, with Atkins noting that he is okay with the Chair speaking for the group. Chappell noted that whoever attends can speak for
themselves as a Member of the Commission. Members weighed in on how they feel about several Members attending such a forum and how they would respond to questions, etc. Chappell noted that he believes the League is trying to get more people involved in the process, and by doing so, it could help this Commission get more public involvement at their next forum. Chappell stated that it is up to the Commission, that he could go as the Chair and speak for the group, or they can decide on several Members attending. Shaw stated that he is not comfortable with three or four Members attending, and he gave an example of someone asking a loaded question and how it would be addressed.
Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 2
The discussion continued, with Kubby giving some examples of how having Members respond to questions at a forum such as this is not really much different from the meetings they are holding themselves. Vanderhoef noted that
at a forum it is a sound bite – not the full conversation that Members have at their own meetings. Kubby asked if Members have a problem with attending the League’s forum. Craig noted that she is not against it, but that she does not think they are far enough along to respond to questions, other than the process they are following. Chappell stated that he would have no hesitation with any of the Members speaking at the forum. He added that attending the League’s forum will be good publicity for their own public forums. Chappell then asked Members if they want him, as Chair, to participate in the forum. Everyone agreed that he should. He asked if others are interested in attending, or if now there is a desire that only the Chair attends. Vanderhoef stated that she would be okay either way. Atkins spoke to some of the questions that may be asked at this forum, noting that they will probably be pretty specific. He stated that they need to use caution in responding to such questions. Having
said this, he would be okay with three or four Members attending or just the Chair. Sullivan stated that he has every confidence in the Chair attending and responding to questions. Members continued to express their concerns with this
type of forum, what type of questions might be asked, and how the questions are deflected by the Chair and/or Members in attendance. Kubby noted that it is not necessarily about deflecting, that it is more about not being definitive. She added that for her the whole purpose of the process is to have people understand all the different elements that come together. Shaw stated that whether or how Members respond at the forum will depend on the format and how the questions are directed. He noted that in a panel setting,
it gives them a chance to say what it is they are doing and to note that they have not yet received a final decision, etc. Shaw stated he is okay with the Chair attending and that he would recommend as many Members going as possible.
He added that if the format is a panel style, then Members may be a part of that panel and that this is where those comments come into play. Craig reiterated that they can only have 4 attend; otherwise it becomes a meeting. Kubby stated
that if they are asking for three or four Members to attend, then it will most likely be a panel type format and the questions will be directed at the panel. Chappell stated that in his opinion, the League’s forum is only a positive thing for them to
participate in. Karr asked if the forum is expected to be televised. She noted that those Members who do not wish to attend could watch it, if it is indeed televised. That way it would allow everyone to see it and be able to hear the exchanges that take place. Craig again stated that she believes several of the Members should attend the League’s forum. She believes it will be a great opportunity for them to get some publicity about the Charter and the process they are undertaking. Chappell
asked who would be interested in attending. Vanderhoef stated that she does not have strong feelings either way. Craig noted that the minutes show Schantz, Atkins, and Kubby as having volunteered to attend. Shaw stated that he would
be willing to go. Craig stated that she is not available on that day. Kubby stated that if Vanderhoef is going that perhaps they should check with Moyers-Stone, so
Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 3
they don’t have a former city manager and two former council members attending. Atkins agreed with this sentiment. Chappell suggested they solidify this at their next meeting. b. Compensation – Karr spoke to the requested comparison of salaries. She noted that this is Item 3(b) in the packets. c. Table of Income Guidelines and Definitions – Karr stated that she sent this information to Members earlier and that it is Item 3(c) in the packets. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Compensation of council members – Chappell stated that there appeared to be some consensus that the salaries are too low. He added that there is perhaps a slightly lesser consensus that something needs to be done about it in the Charter and no apparent consensus yet that if something does need to be done just what that would be. Chappell noted that Dilkes had suggested they take a look at how other cities handle this type of compensation, and that this is what Karr has provided for their review. Chappell continued, reviewing the information, stating that Iowa City is low on the compensation scale, but not as
low as everyone may have thought. He noted that only one of the other communities addresses council compensation in their charter. Dulek noted that most cities do not have a Home Rule Charter, but instead a ‘special charter.’
She briefly described what a ‘special charter’ is, noting that in 1975 they froze their form of government ‘as is,’ and that there are only a handful of cities that have a Home Rule Charter, like Iowa City does.
Kubby noted that as she continues to think about this, she is beginning to like the idea of having something about compensation in the Charter. She believes this removes the process from the people who will find it politically difficult to make this decision – the city council. Kubby stated that she does not want a set
number in the Charter, but instead a community standard that changes over time. Sullivan stated that he agrees with Kubby on this issue, and that he would be interested in having some type of mechanism to ensure that the council takes some action item over a prescribed timeline. Members continued to discuss this issue, especially the idea of a formula that could be utilized. Craig noted that currently they are at 12.5% of median income. Chappell noted that the idea was
to offset some level of income, for the time that council members are expected to put forth.
Chappell stated that he is still not convinced that anything they do will really be enough to encourage underrepresented individuals to try and participate in the city council. Craig stated that she is a bit concerned about this amount, as the money has to come from somewhere every year. Members also discussed there being no monetary compensation, such as the School Board Members. Atkins stated that he is more inclined to say ‘set it and forget it.’ By this he means that they set in the Charter what the amount is, and that that is what it is. Vanderhoef stated that she thought the compensation was adjusted by CPI. Karr noted that it
used to be this way, but that it was amended a few years back. She then gave some history, noting that Council passed an ordinance that tied the compensation to the CPI and had it automatically adjusted in accordance with this, via the budget. Then when the budget tightened some years back, the Council chose to amend this ordinance. She stated the CPI reference was not in
Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 4
the Charter, but was a separate ordinance in the code. Karr will provide ordinance language history at the next meeting.
Continuing the discussion, Chappell noted that it appears the City is approaching some tight times now, unless the legislature were to make some highly unlikely changes. He believes it would be an awkward and difficult time for the Council to come up with this money. Craig asked if others believe the Council would even accept a recommendation such as this, were the Commission to suggest it. She noted that this may put the current Council in an awkward position in April. Shaw stated that he is not sure that setting a floor for council salary would be a great idea in the Charter itself. He added that he believes individuals do not run for council positions for the salary but for other reasons. He stated that he is not persuaded an increase would encourage more individuals to run. Continuing, Shaw stated that having heard some of the comments about initiative and referendum, changing the mayor/council form of government, and the many strong opinions that people have shared, he questioned this Commission recommending a salary change with all of these other important issues being
raised. He stated that something like that could leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. Shaw asked how the salary would change for council, if they were to make it part of the Charter. Would it change again in 10 years?
Chappell noted earlier discussion of making this a recommended change that they mention in their report to Council, recommending that Council discuss this issue and move forward with it. Chappell stated that it would be interesting to know the impediments to underrepresented persons from running for council seats. He questioned if it is the salary, or if it is due to council meeting every other Tuesday at 5:00. Kubby stated that she believes if they make a recommendation to Council about salary regarding their current ordinance that
nothing will happen. She believes instead that the Commission’s recommendation should state what they believe is best for the Charter, and then Council will accept or reject or put on the ballot what they want. Speaking to the
other cities, Shaw questioned what they would be using as comparables in this situation. He believes they would need to set parameters. Sullivan spoke to this issue as well, stating that he believes using median income is a better way to go.
Members continued to discuss this issue, looking especially at other cities within Iowa that they could compare Iowa City to in this regard.
Craig stated she is not interested in doubling the Council’s salary. She stated that there has to be a better way, especially when you look at how the School Board has such a diverse pool of candidates. Atkins noted that there also is an ebb and flow within the community in politics, and that 10 to 12 years ago, no one ran for School Board. Vanderhoef added that for the council elections, there used to always be a primary for the at-large seats, that they would have up to nine running for at-large. Both she and Atkins voiced that this is just part of that ebb and flow. Vanderhoef noted that when she joined the Council, they received
$5,000 and the mayor was always given $1,000 more. When the CPI was added, she noted that it raised these amounts, since 2008, from the $5,000 she saw to the $7,000 they receive currently. Karr noted that during each budget
cycle, the council does review each line item and that this would most likely be the time they would discuss the issue of council compensation. Chappell noted
Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 5
that they don’t appear to be anywhere near a consensus at this time regarding this issue, and that perhaps this will be one of the community discussion topics. Atkins added that he wants to believe that people run for city council because
they believe they can make a difference, and that CPIs and items like this being incorporated into the Charter, would make him very uncomfortable.
b. Use of word “citizen” – Chappell moved on to the issue of the words ‘citizen’ and “person.’ He noted that they have another memo from Karr regarding this
topic. The discussion began with ‘citizen,’ most notably in Section 5, Citizens Police Review Board. Craig stated that something to talk with this board about would be if their view is that it is for ‘citizens’ only. Karr noted that the renaming of the Citizens Police Review Board was an ordinance change based upon a recommendation from the City’s Diversity Committee. She explained that you do not have to be a citizen to file a complaint. Kubby stated that they could leave ‘citizen’ in this section and still change ‘citizen’ to ‘resident’ in the other sections. Kubby stated that Dilkes really clarified for them that the legal definition of ‘citizen’ does not mean you have to be a legal resident or a registered person, but that it’s really about perception and being as welcoming as possible due to the connotation of this word. Craig noted that it is not in their Definitions section
either and should be. Continuing the discussion, Vanderhoef noted that when the original Charter was
written, Iowa City was not nearly as diverse as it is now, and there were very few non-U.S. citizens at that time. The ones that were here were primarily students at the University for just a few years. She believes that now they need the
distinction of ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’ in that there are a number of individuals in the community that are not legal residents of the United States, and the City needs to be able to serve them, in the broader scope, if they have a problem within the community. Chappell stated that he is all for removing offense language to the extent that ‘citizen’ is going to be interpreted by some as being underinclusive or offensive. He is agreeable to changing ‘citizen’ to something else, but that once they start defining things, you have to be very careful. He added that every definition has any number of reactions to it. He stated that if they do change it from ‘citizen,’ his first reaction is to change it to ‘resident.’ However, if they define ‘resident,’ he believes it just gets more complicated. He asked how you would then define ‘resident,’ and if this would include ‘persons’ as they have already
discussed the fact that ‘persons’ includes corporations, which other people do not like. Chappell stated that sometimes you just have to be able to say that people know what something means. Kubby agreed, stating that it would not have to be
defined, that it is not defined currently. The majority of Members agreed that ‘resident’ is the preferable term here. Chappell asked if there was a consensus of Members wanting to change ‘citizen.’ Vanderhoef stated that she does not
understand the connotation of why ‘citizen’ is not a good term. Kubby stated that it connotes citizenship, a legal status. Vanderhoef stated that if you have that status, then a resident is merely someone who physically resides in a city. She believes that this is the most appropriate term. She believes they should leave ‘citizen’ and use ‘resident’ only where it is in the protection of all the residents, but not necessarily given the rights of a citizen. Kubby stated that in looking through the document and seeing where the word ‘citizen’ is, it seems to appear that changing it to ‘resident’ does not cause any problems, except for the Citizens
Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 6
Police Review Board, which they already talked about leaving as is in that section.
c. Preamble and definitions – Sullivan noted that it appears in three places, one in the Preamble where it is talking about the CPRB and then again when it says ‘citizens can apply for boards and commissions.’ He noted that they had discussed adopting a different Preamble, that Schantz had come up with something they are going to discuss at a future meeting. He noted that due to the wording in this reworded Preamble, it may remove many of their questions. Shaw stated that he believes it was given to them in the last few weeks – Schantz’s Preamble. He asked if they could look at it quickly to see if some of their issues were indeed addressed here. Members then looked at the August 26 packet and reviewed Schantz’s rewritten Preamble. Chappell asked Craig to read this aloud for Members. Kubby stated that she made a note that regarding the addition of ‘…and local ordinances’ in the second to last bullet. Chappell stated that they really have not
had much discussion about Schantz’s rewritten Preamble at this point. Craig stated that Schantz did remove all uses of the word ‘citizen’ in the Preamble. It was noted that the use of ‘persons’ was also removed. Vanderhoef noted that
the use of ‘resident’ here is how she would think of it being used. Kubby stated that she believes Schantz’s version is missing a critical point, the benefits of Home Rule, and she believes this needs to be mentioned in the Preamble. She believes it to be such a fundamental piece of who Iowa City is and how the city government is structured. Vanderhoef agreed, noting that she also made notes to that effect. Chappell stated that it sounds to him like they are heading to some consensus on
‘resident,’ but that they still have the question of whether they make a change to the initial Preamble, or they look at a different Preamble. He stated that he would like to wait until the next meeting so Schantz could be a part of it. He asked that
they turn to use of the word ‘person’ in the Charter. Kubby noted that there is some difference in how the word is used, such as in the Preamble. Vanderhoef stated that if they are looking at ‘person’ versus ‘citizen,’ they can look at
Schantz’s proposal and the first bullet states ‘resident participation on inclusive basis and democratic self-government.’ She added that this is one of the few place where she would use the word ‘citizen.’ Chappell stated that at this point,
however, they are looking at ‘person’ and whether or not to change something about the definition of the word ‘person,’ and whether it would cause any problems by doing so. Members continued their discussion, with Kubby speaking to corporations being ‘people’ and how they can articulate their distaste within the community that corporations are defined as people by the Supreme Court. This would be a semantic way of doing so. Chappell asked if anyone believes they need to
change the definition of ‘person.’ Kubby stated that she does not like corporations being defined as ‘people’ in the Charter. She added that she will not block consensus on this issue, nor will she support it. Chappell asked if she
has a change to propose on this issue. Kubby noted that she believes they should take ‘corporation’ out of the definition, and then in the sections where they
Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 7
want corporations to be restricted, then they add the word ‘corporation.’ Sullivan asked how you would then deal with companies, associations, and political parties then. Kubby stated that the only place it really appears to be a problem is
the section about Campaign Contributions. Craig stated that they would also want corporations, small businesses or whatever size businesses in their community to be protected. Kubby stated that they could do another search, looking for the word ‘person’ to see how many might need to be replaced. Craig stated that she made notes on this very thing as she went through the Charter. Shaw stated that he is not suggesting they create a definition for ‘corporations,’ but that they could remove from the definition of ‘persons,’ words such as corporations, partnerships, etc. and refer to Dilkes’ comments about the Iowa Statute 490 or some other provision that defines it. Sullivan stated that he does not find the use of the word ‘persons’ to be an issue here. Chappell asked Kubby to propose some language for them to review and discuss at the next meeting, especially with the missing Members present to join in.
Kubby then asked about who can sign a petition, she noted that it says ‘each person signing shall provide certain information.’ She gave the example of the president of an S Corporation, asking if a person could sign for the corporation
and as an individual. Discussion ensued, with Chappell noting that a corporation cannot vote, that in those situations it is obvious. d. Primary vs. Run-off election – Chappell stated that after looking at all of the information they received, there appears to be no consensus to make a change from ‘primary’ to ‘run-off.’ He asked if Members agreed, and the majority did. e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) – No discussion
PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): November 10 – Chappell reminded Members of their special Monday meeting. He
stated that he would try to send a reminder over the weekend, and Karr added that the packet should be going out no later than Friday, November 7. At the next meeting, Chappell would like to finalize who is attending the League’s forum. Chappell asked
Members to email him any issues of high interest. Karr stated that as soon as they can pinpoint their next forum, it will help in ensuring they are able to reserve the proper room. Chappell asked that they add this topic to the next agenda. November 25 December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Moyers-Stone absent.
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2014 – 7:45 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Julie Voparil RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meetings on 10/28/14 b. Citizens Police Review Board
Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Atkins seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. League of Women Voters Forum – Chappell reviewed previous discussions and stated that they do need to make a decision on participation. He stated that they have committed to doing the forum, and what the League would like to see is three to four Members present at their upcoming public forum. Chappell stated that he is happy to attend the forum, especially in light of being Chair. He stated that he would like to have two females and one additional male attend, so as to achieve a gender balance. Vanderhoef suggested Shaw attend. He noted that
he is scheduled to be in Cedar Rapids at 6:00 that day. Members continued to discuss the issue, with Schantz stating that he would be happy to attend. In addition, Moyers-Stone and Kubby agreed to attend the forum.
b. Compensatory History – Chappell noted that Karr provided the changes in the ordinance dealing with council compensation.
c. Other – Chappell asked if there were any other reports from staff or Commission Members. Kubby stated that she has some ideas about the word ‘person’ and corporations and the association, but that she did not have the time to get her report done prior to this meeting. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Compensation of council members – Chappell noted that their previous discussions ended with them unsure if they wanted to do anything about this piece. He noted that Moyers-Stone and Schantz were gone at the last meeting,
Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 2
and that he would be interested in what they may have to say. He added that he believes this may be something they want to talk about at their second public forum, that it would be interesting to see what feedback they get. Moyers-Stone
stated that her feelings are pretty much the same, in that she believes the compensation should be enough to compensate council for the amount of time that they are spending on council duties, but not so much that this would become a real job. She does not believe a number should be set in the Charter necessarily. Schantz stated that he believes the compensation is too low, but that there is something to be said for the Charter taking the burden off the council itself of raising their own salary. Chappell suggested they indefinitely table this item until they decide how they are going to structure their second public forum. Atkins stated that he believes they should settle on something and not leave this item hanging. Chappell stated that he is comfortable in hearing some input at the public forum. Kubby stated that not only is it a compensation issue, but it is also a Charter issue – whether compensation should be part of the Charter or not. Dilkes noted that State law says that compensation must be set by ordinance. If the Charter addresses compensation, the Council will probably adopt an
ordinance to reflect whatever the Charter says. b. Use of word “citizen” – Chappell then moved on to discuss use of the word ‘citizen.’ He noted that everyone has the document where Karr highlighted all of
the different uses of the word. Chappell then asked who would like to replace the word ‘citizen’ with ‘resident’ in the Charter. Sullivan stated that he would be open to that change. Atkins stated that he would like to hear a bit more discussion on this issue. Chappell then asked if any of the Members believe it would be a bad idea to replace ‘citizen’ with ‘resident.’ Kubby stated that the one section she believes it would not work is the Citizen Police Review Board section. Vanderhoef stated that as they previously discussed, changing the Preamble section which may eliminate the need for this change. Dilkes then asked if the
option of defining ‘citizen’ as a ‘resident of Iowa City’ was discussed at all. Kubby stated that they did, but the reason behind the change is due to the connotation of the word, not the definition of the word. She noted that they also discussed
defining ‘resident,’ and that they should not do this as it can lead to its own issues. Moyers-Stone stated that for her, she would like to see one term used and to have it defined. She noted that currently neither word is defined and that
they are used back and forth throughout the Charter. Sullivan noted that both are used very sparsely, with ‘citizen’ appearing 10 times
in two different sections, and ‘resident’ only appears twice. Half of the uses of ‘citizen’ appear in the Preamble, which could be solved with a new Preamble. Sullivan continued, noting that he likes what Kubby said about the connotation of ‘citizen,’ but that he also believes if they define ‘citizen’ as they see it in this case that it would address the issue to some extent. Atkins added that ‘resident’ is more of a location-sounding word, that you are physically there. ‘Citizen,’ on the other hand, is something broader in definition. Atkins stated that he likes the idea of writing their own definition for the use here. Members continued to
discuss this issue, with some believing ‘resident’ should be used and others leaning towards ‘citizen.’ Shaw stated that more importantly, how often does the issue of citizenship versus resident come up. He added that if they cannot agree
on the use, he asked if either use of the word ‘citizen’ or ‘resident’ has less political connotations, than perhaps a broader interpretation should be used.
Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 3
Members continued to discuss the issue, agreeing finally that use of ‘resident,’ undefined, is their preference but that they would still use the word in reference to the CPRB. Dilkes questioned this, which led to a brief discussion, with
Members speaking to the CPRB and whether it should be the Police Review Board instead. Chappell reiterated what is being proposed, which is changing the name to ‘Residents Police Review Board,’ or the ‘Police Review Board.’ Continuing, Chappell moved through the sections that they are proposing changes to. He stated that it appears they have consensus to change the word ‘citizen’ to ‘resident’ throughout the Charter document. He noted that he will contact Melissa Jensen, the CPRB Chair, to let her know what the Commission is considering, as well as the reasoning behind it. Chappell stated that from what he has heard, the CPRB has recommended some changes. He continued, noting that this is on page 10 of the meeting packet. The CPRB’s proposal is to ‘hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of the CPRB hearing views on the polices, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City Police
Department.’ Chappell noted that the first thing being recommended is to get rid of the word ‘citizen,’ which the Commission have themselves addressed. The second recommendation is to remove the phrase ‘…and to make
recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the City Council.’ Chappell stated that he is uncomfortable removing this phrase, and he asked if others on the Commission are as well. Craig stated that she thought this was the point of the CPRB – to make recommendations based on what they hear. Chappell stated that he would raise this issue with the Chair, as well. c. Preamble and Definitions – Moving on, the discussion turned to the Preamble and Definitions sections of the Charter. Chappell asked Schantz if he would like to discuss his recommendations, which are on page 18 of the meeting packet.
Schantz spoke first to the decision to add ‘Home Rule’ to the Charter, noting that he believes the best place is in the first phrase – between ‘full’ and ‘powers.’ ‘To confer upon it the full Home Rule powers of a Charter city.’ Continuing, Schantz
stated that he believes these words were left out as he put ‘self determination’ in instead. He noted that this comes mainly from the model Home Rule Charter document. Schantz stated that he believes the first two bullet points are
essential, and that the last two may be debatable. Chappell asked Schantz if he could speak to why he believes this version is better than the current one. Schantz responded that first off he likes the ‘We the people’ phrase as it is used
in many constitutions and emphasizes a ‘bottom-up’ process, which he believes the current wording does not do. He believes the language he is proposing captures the importance of what the Charter is attempting to do. Secondly, Schantz stated that some of the items in the Preamble are there so that in political discussions or arguments about city government, there would be some very broad principles that you could grab hold of and indicate that those come right from the core of the Charter itself. Chappell then asked the Commission if there is a general consensus to change the Preamble to something along the
lines of what Schantz is proposing. He added that they can then look at making any changes to it that Members may want to make. Sullivan stated that he likes Schantz’s proposal and would agree to using it as a starting point for a
recommendation. Others agreed with Sullivan’s statement, with Shaw stating that he would be happy to work with Schantz on any revisions to the most recent
Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 4
draft. Atkins and Moyers-Stone both agreed with Schantz’s proposal. Chappell suggested that they put the Preamble on the next agenda and that everyone bring any revisions they would like to see made to it. d. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) – Chappell then suggested they briefly discuss the public forum set-up that he would like to see for the second meeting. He asked Kubby to help explain the second public forum that was held 10 years ago, during the previous Charter review. Kubby stated that the purpose of the process was not to just have people say what they think and have the Commission absorb it, but to really have conversations and the exchange of ideas with the public. She explained that at this forum, people were split up into small groups, and each Commission Member facilitated a small group. Each Member led their group with a specific topic, asking people what their opinions were and asking how they felt about a possible change to something in the Charter. Continuing, Kubby stated that they each had around three topics and typically spent about 20 minutes on each topic. Chappell noted that the group would identify beforehand what the top three or four topics are that they want to get feedback on. He added that typically an hour to an hour and a
half timeframe is the most they should have. Chappell then asked Members how they feel about this type of format for the
second forum. Sullivan stated that to him this is a completely new idea, and that his first concern is that not everyone who comes is heard by the entire Commission. Chappell stated that this is a good point and they would need someone to take detailed notes. Sullivan added that if someone takes the time to come to the forum, he would like to hear what they have to say, rather than read someone’s notes. His other concern is that it seems very formulated, in that people end up feeling that their viewpoint was lost in the shuffle of others’ viewpoints. He feels that a forum like this kind of molds peoples’ viewpoints
together. Kubby noted that it is different – that they are asking people to think about where they are at and to put themselves in a different frame, to look at both pros and cons – not just one viewpoint. Craig noted that there are all kinds
of avenues for people to share their opinions – emails, Commission meetings, forums – and she thinks this type of forum adds to those available avenues, so people can share their thoughts and opinions.
Shaw spoke to this type of forum, asking if they are there to ‘referee’ each small group. He noted that at the first forum people could say what they want, but that
the second is stricter in what people share. Kubby noted that it is a different way to get feedback, and that the job of the facilitators is to really keep the conversation on topic. Chappell stated that they are definitely not referees at this forum, that it is facilitating the group and keeping people on topic. Kubby stated that she could send to Karr what the previous Commission used at their second forum. They had a ‘cheat sheet’ of sorts that formatted the topics and gave them ideas on how to run the group.
Chappell asked Sullivan if he has ideas for other ways to conduct such a forum. Sullivan responded that he thought it would be similar to the first forum, where people speak from the podium. He added that once they know what the changes
are going to be to the Charter, they should have another ‘open mic’ style meeting to gather input. Others agreed that once they have their final draft it would make
Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 5
sense to ask for public input again. Moyers-Stone stated that the small group approach appeals to her, versus the open mic, in that the public can see exactly what the Members are doing and what the process has been. Chappell stated
that they need to now figure out the best date for this second forum. He stated that over the next three meetings, they need to discuss ‘Initiative and Referendum.’ Other issues where they have not had consensus yet include the direct election of the mayor, and whether to change to ‘pure’ or keep the bifurcated district system. Continuing, Chappell suggested they look at a January date for the forum. Some discussion ensued regarding the Council’s schedule at that time and room availability. Chappell suggested January 7 as the forum date and asked Members their thoughts. Vanderhoef asked if they should have a special meeting themselves, prior to the forum. Others agreed that the day before, January 6, would work. Chappell then reiterated his request that Karr check for a forum space and time for Wednesday, January 7, at 7:00 P.M. (or earlier if necessary), and also a special meeting of the Charter Review Commission on Tuesday morning, January 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): November 25 – Chappell noted that they should have the report on the League of
Women Voters regarding their forum. He asked that Members bring their calendars to this meeting so they can get their meetings set for 2015. Craig asked if they should plan on specific topics to discuss at the next meeting, and Chappell stated that they would definitely talk about Initiative and Referendum, as well as the Preamble. Before adjourning, Atkins asked for some clarification of the second forum’s format. Chappell and Kubby responded, with Kubby noting that she will find the suggested format outline and facilitator notes so that everyone understands how they conducted this previously. Dilkes noted that Karr can probably access this fairly easily from the previous Commission’s minutes and notes. Dilkes suggested the group keep track of the pros and cons when they themselves discuss some of these bigger issues, as it may help them conduct the upcoming forum. December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2014 – 7:45 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (arrived at 7:52), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 11/10/14 b. Letter from Rita Bettis Chappell asked if anyone had any proposed amendments to the minutes. Craig noted that she did not agree to attend the League forum, as is stated in the minutes, and Kubby attended. Vanderhoef moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. League of Women Voters Forum – Chappell spoke about the League of Women Voters’ recent forum, noting that there were perhaps a dozen people present, in addition to the four Commission Members and the League. He noted
that they briefly covered the history of the Charter, talked about the Commission’s review process, and then shared some of the issues that have identified as needing further input, i.e., whether to change to a directly-elected
mayor, whether to have pure districts, whether to change initiative and referendum so that eligible electors can sign petitions, and whether to do something about increasing compensation for Council Members. Chappell
explained the issue of qualified versus eligible; what an initiative and a referendum are, giving an example; pros and cons of a directly elected mayor; and the issue of Council compensation. Another question asked why the Mayor and the City Manager cannot share power. Kubby noted that a few of the questions were not about Charter issues, but more about the City Council. Sullivan asked if the majority of participants were League members. Kubby responded that the majority were League members, with a few members of the public present as well.
Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 2 REVIEW CHARTER: a. Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board – Chappell noted
that he was in contact with the Chair of the CPRB and briefly discussed with her the issue of a name change for this board. He stated that she showed a high level of concern regarding any changes whatsoever, and that she believed the CPRB itself would have concerns regarding this. Chappell stated that he reviewed this Commission’s feelings regarding ‘resident’ versus ‘citizen,’ but that the Chair did not share the same concerns. Chappell stated that he offered to have a few of the Members meet with the CPRB to better explain their stance on this issue, should it come down to being part of a formal recommendation. Chappell then spoke to the CPRB’s possible proposal to remove any reference to the Charter from their policies and procedures. The Chair told Chappell that this came from their legal counsel. He stated that her description was that this just concerns their public hearing and their concern that people are expecting the CPRB to make recommendations at the public hearing. Kubby noted that this is
basically the CPRB’s fundamental function that is in this document and that this is what makes it so powerful. Chappell stated that he then spoke to the CPRB’s legal counsel very briefly and that his recollection was that since the Board is
unable to make recommendations about policies, practices, procedures, it would make sense to remove this from the Charter. Karr stated that she was at a few of the CPRB’s meetings, and she shared how the CPRB views some of these issues. For instance, they read A1 totally to refer to the community forum, separate from the ordinance duties. Kubby stated that perhaps their job is to make this more clear, that the ‘ability to make recommendations’ is not just about the annual public process. Others agreed, and Kubby stated that they could make it clearer in the ordinance. Karr stated that the ordinance is very clear, as it
is more detailed. Reviewing this, Chappell suggested stopping the sentence after ‘to hold at least
one hearing on the procedures of the Iowa City Police Department.’ Then delete the ‘and’ and capitalize ‘To,’ making this paragraph #2, changing 2 and 3 to 3 and 4. He stated that this should make it clearer that this is one of the CPRB’s
powers and in their authority to do so. He asked if there was consensus to these changes and Members agreed. Karr reiterated that the confusion started with the feeling that people will get some sort of response or satisfaction, or even
dialogue, with the Police at this public forum, and that this is not a requirement in the ordinance or the Charter. Chappell then asked Members what their feelings are on the name issue. He reiterated that he told the CPRB’s Chair that if the Commission felt there should be a change to their name that he would send a couple of Members to meet with the CPRB and have a dialogue regarding a possible recommendation to the Council. Karr noted that originally this board was called the ‘Police Citizens
Review Board,’ and that through work with the Diversity Committee and the Board itself, the name was recently changed to the ‘Citizens Police Review Board.’ Sullivan stated that given the Board’s history, he would not be inclined to
fight them on a name change. Chappell asked how others felt, and Vanderhoef responded that for her, it was the citizens that pushed to form this board to begin
Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 3
with and that they have heavy ownership to the review process. She believes that to turn it around and say ‘police’ only would be a tough fight. She agreed with others that it would not be worth it. Chappell suggested that he, Craig, and
one other Member have some dialogue with the CPRB regarding the changes they are proposing throughout the Charter and why. He asked who would join him and Craig at such a meeting. Sullivan agreed that he would join in this. Karr will let Chappell know when the CPRB’s next meeting is scheduled. Atkins asked if they as a Commission have a definite stand on this issue. Kubby noted that she thought there were two possibilities, one was to have it be ‘Police Review Board,’ and the other to have ‘Resident’ in place of ‘Citizen.’ Chappell stated that they could call it ‘Community Police Review Board,’ or any number of things, but that the sense he got was that they do not want the name changed at all. b. Use of word “citizen” – Chappell noted that Kubby submitted a memo regarding this issue. He asked if she wanted to speak to this further. Kubby stated that she was trying to respect the Supreme Court’s decision that
corporations are people, while still separating it out in the Charter. She stated that Dilkes could speak to whether her suggestions would work or not. Kubby reviewed her suggestions, noting that she found a few instances in the Charter
where a person meant something more than an individual. She reviewed her suggestions for change here, as well. Chappell spoke to his impressions, asking how they would define a person. Kubby asked if they could say ‘human being’ in this case. Shaw asked for some clarification here, asking if the concern is that an entity that operates for profit will receive a benefit that others in the community do not, or imply their powers. Kubby stated that the concern was the whole idea that these other entities are defined as people in the City’s fundamental document, and trying to find a way to separate this out within the Charter.
Schantz noted that the Supreme Court’s decision really only applies to federal Constitutional rights and that a city can define a person how they want in broad terms. Craig asked what the State’s definition is, and Dilkes replied that she will
obtain this information for the Members. Kubby stated that if no one else is interested in this separation then there is no sense in spending more time on the issue. Atkins asked why this is so important here, and Kubby stated that for her
it is both a political and a functional statement, that organizations are not human beings and should not have all of the same rights and privileges as a person. Schantz asked where, other than voting and political speech, this would matter.
Shaw spoke to the use of the word ‘person’ within the Charter, noting that it is used liberally throughout. He spoke to how a corporation would have the same basis to say that they have a liberty to do what they want, or to challenge it should they be told they cannot do something – just as a person would. Chappell stated that he sees this recommendation’s sole intent being to call partnership to corporations something other than ‘persons.’ His only concern is how they would then define ‘person,’ and that perhaps they do use ‘human
being.’ Kubby noted that currently it is ‘individual.’ Schantz stated that he has no problem with this being separated out. Shaw spoke to what he thought originally was being said here, but now he understands what Kubby is attempting to do
with her suggestions. Craig added that it is not a functional change in any way, but a semantic, political statement type of change instead. Shaw stated that he
Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 4
would not have any issue with this. Chappell asked that they list this on the agenda for the next meeting and that Members go back and look at Kubby’s material in this context. Kubby asked that Dilkes look at the State’s definitions on
this. c. Preamble and Definitions – Moving on, Chappell noted that Karr has printed up copies of Schantz’s proposals. Schantz stated that he is agreeable to the red-line version included in the packet. Kubby stated that she likes the proposals put forth by Schantz, and Atkins spoke to the wording used here with ‘We the People.’ Chappell suggested that the dashes be replaced with numbers. Atkins noted that he is in favor of these suggested changes, but asked that they also have the right to go back and revisit this, should they change other things within the Charter that would be tied to this. Dilkes noted that once they are done with their review, staff will prepare a red line version of the entire Charter so that Members can see all of the changes being made and can make further suggestions at that time. Chappell asked if there was tentative approval for the red line version of the Preamble at this point. Members agreed to approve this
section. d. Initiative and Referendum – Chappell noted that they tentatively approved
some of the basics, and that now they need to speak to ‘qualified’ and ‘eligible’ persons. He asked if Members had proposed changes to share at this point. Kubby referred to J, amendments affecting City zoning, asking if this was added after the last Charter review. Dilkes stated that the concern on this one is around the process for zoning changes, as it is set forth in State code. Sullivan asked Kubby if this is a concern for her, and Chappell responded that there are people who do not like this State code. Shaw stated that he had a question regarding sub-paragraph K, and if public improvement includes roads or anything other
than structures. Dilkes stated that it is construction projects in general. The discussion turned to the two-year timeframe that both a referendum and
initiative are considered good. Kubby spoke to how difficult and extended the process is for referendum and initiative, one that is not taken lightly. Then within two years, either the Council can change it or someone can come back with a
referendum or an initiative again. Previous discussion had looked at extending this timeframe. Kubby stated that they had considered four years, not wanting the timeframe to be too long as things do change over time. Chappell gave an
example of how four years could be too long, especially if you are trying to get something moved forward. Vanderhoef stated that the other side of this would be unintended consequences showing up. Sullivan stated that he does share the concerns that Chappell and Vanderhoef have voiced, but that it could also go the other way, that two years may be too short. Chappell asked if there is any history of Council undoing what’s been done at two years. Sullivan spoke to red light cameras, noting that this was with the understanding that Council would revisit the issue, which expires in a few months time.
Conversation continued on this issue, with Dilkes noting that she does not recall any instances where Council made changes, but that people have taken
advantage of the two-year timeframe to bring an issue forward again. Atkins noted that a rule of thumb with projects is: it takes a year to approve a project, it
Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 5
takes a year to design it, and it takes a year to build it. Kubby noted that public improvements, however, aren’t subject to referendum and initiative, so they won’t need to address that here. Kubby stated that she wonders if two years is long
enough to understand the unintended consequences, adding that you need at least three data points to show a trend. With lag times included into this equation, the timeframe goes even further. Moyers-Stone stated that with the 21-ordinance, for example, it seemed that they voted on and discussed the issue a lot. Sullivan noted that the 21-ordinance example is one that appeared to be working after two years, but that after the two-year period, it was obvious that it was working even better than expected. Chappell stated that he did not recall the Council ‘undoing’ anything like this. He added that the only thing that comes to mind is the First Avenue issue and he briefly shared what he remembers of this issue. Shaw asked about the resubmission of a measure and whether it would be considered, if an initiative received a positive number of votes, sooner than the two-year timeframe. Chappell stated that he would not be interested in
something like this as there is not a consistent number of voters in these types of elections. Members continued to discuss the initiative and referendum issue. Moyers-Stone spoke to how if the ‘eligible’ versus ‘qualified’ issue were to
change it could open the door to creating higher standards for some of these other issues. Kubby stated that perhaps they need to hear Dilkes’ reaction to the ACLU’s attorney’s interpretation. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to know the number of cities in Iowa that have initiative and referendum as a possibility for their citizens. Dilkes replied that there is only one other city in Iowa. Vanderhoef stated that this tells her that the majority of cities don’t want to engage in this type of thing with their citizens.
Dilkes then spoke to Members regarding the ACLU’s letter, noting that it makes allegations of unconstitutionality, and distributed copies of Chapter 362. She added that there is no argument shown or any case law with respect to the
constitutional issues, and that she addressed these issues in her memo dated August 5, 2014. Continuing, Dilkes stated that the main argument being made by the ACLU is that the Charter must follow the State Code provision of 362.4 for
petition requirements. Dilkes stated that there is nothing in State law that requires you to set a certain petition requirement for initiative and referendum. She pointed out State Code 362.4, noting that she does not agree with the
ACLU’s view on this matter. She explained why, pointing out what the State Code says specifically regarding this issue. e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) - none PUBLIC COMMENT: Caroline Dieterle addressed the Commission regarding the possible change of ‘citizen’ to ‘resident.’ She added that she understands that the Commission’s intention is good. However, she raised some concern about how this plays into the ‘eligible elector’ issue. Dieterle stated that she believes it to be contradictory to use ‘resident’ in place of ‘citizen.’ She then stated that she is appalled by the Commission’s worry about citizens filing petitions and asking for votes on things. She added that this is a participatory democracy, one where you urge people to vote
Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 6
and participate, and yet when people try to do this, it becomes impossible with all of the roadblocks that get thrown up. Dieterle then stated that in reply to Dilkes’ assertions about the ACLU’s letter, she finds it interesting to hear that there is a section of the Charter that ignores
State law. She added that this then implies that they can do other things under the Home Rule that also ignore State law. She suggested they pass a pesticide ordinance under this, and abandon the idea that you cannot do these things under Iowa Code. She added that she finds this whole thing exceedingly offensive, that things should be made easier for the people to participate in city government. Dieterle continued to voice her unhappiness with these issues, noting that to use ‘resident’ in the Preamble is just not right to her. Her main concern, however, regards the initiative and referendum. She has participated in these petition drives and stated that it is a very onerous job to undertake. Schantz explained his stance on this issue. Dieterle stated that ‘eligible elector’ does cover it, that you don’t actually have to be registered to vote but that you are eligible to. Martha Hampel stated that she agrees with Dieterle’s views on these issues. She too has collected the 2,500 signatures for a petition, noting that it is more than what the State requires. Hampel too noted that it is a lot of hard work to undertake a petition drive, that people do not
take these issues lightly. She added that it is really just a few people doing a lot of hard work for the collective city. That with having to work and raise families, many are unable to take part in any way – other than being able to sign the petitions. She believes they should eliminate the
‘qualified elector’ requirement and have ‘eligible electors’ able to sign petitions. SCHEDULE NEXT PUBLIC FORUM: a. Date – tentative January 7 b. Location – Public Library c. Time – Members agreed to a 6:00 PM start time to begin this forum. d. Format – Chappell stated that they should briefly discuss the format. He noted that Kubby sent the information from the last Charter review forum for their review. He asked if Members wanted to follow a format similar to this. Sullivan stated that his preference would be for more of an open format, but that if they are going with a ‘steered’ format, then this would be a good one to follow. Members spoke briefly to what issues they want highlighted at this forum. Craig suggested that if they do go with this format that the Members themselves rotate between groups. She believes they would
get to interact more with those who attend. Kubby stated that her concern is the building of rapport with the small group, and that staying with the same group helps to keep this going. Karr shared her concerns with a January date as there has not yet been any
publicity for the forum, and secondly, the subjects have not yet been set. She added that the press release and all of the publicity will be based on the format of the forum. Members discussed how some of these issues overlap and how they would want the
format to go. Schantz noted that December 9 is the last meeting he will be able to attend for a while, and he suggested they discuss at that time these issues a bit further so they can firm up their agenda. Members continued to firm up their main topics for the forum, ultimately deciding on ‘qualified’ versus ‘eligible,’ Council compensation, and then combine direct election of the mayor and pure districts. Chappell suggested that Karr move ahead with the publicity for this forum. e. Televised – TBD
Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 7 TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): December 9 December 23 January 6 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 A.M., seconded by Schantz. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2014 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw (8:15), Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Julie Voparil (left 8:10) Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes (arrived 8:10) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 11/25/14 Craig the first paragraph on page 5 and questioned the language ‘won’t sign petitions if there aren’t immediate results.’ Kubby stated that on page 3, under B, the discussion was about the word ‘people’ not ‘citizen.’; and also noted on page 5, in the paragraph before e. Commission discussion of other sections, the second line – ‘noting that it makes allegations a constitutionality.’ Something was missing. Staff will follow-up with changes. b. Matt Evans (correspondence) Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar with the proposed changes. Atkins seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Shaw absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Deputy City Clerk Voparil noted that Karr and Dilkes will be arriving after the special Council
meeting ends. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Initiative and Referendum – Chappell began by stating that he believes the biggest issue they need to tackle right now is the ‘qualified’ versus ‘eligible’ matter. If there is consensus to make a change here, from qualified to eligible, then they will need to have further discussion in order to see if there are other changes that people want as well. He noted that if there is not a consensus to make this change, then there still may be other changes that people would like to discuss further. Continuing, Chappell stated that Sullivan has come up with some items for discussion, and he suggested they start with these. Sullivan stated that he believes the petition process is a powerful one and that they should cast a wide net in terms of who is able to participate in this process. He
Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 2
added that they need to be really careful in the current rules about who is not participating and whose signatures are likely being thrown out. Sullivan also noted that this is an issue they have received a lot of correspondence on, the
majority of which has said they should do away with ‘qualified electors.’ He encouraged Members to keep an open mind and to hear what people have to say at the January public forum. Schantz noted that he is in favor of changing from ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible.’ Craig asked if they would be considering increasing the number of signatures required if they did make this change. Sullivan stated that he believes they would want to increase this number, and he asked if the 2,500 threshold isn’t outdated at this point. He added that he is not looking at this as making it easier to do initiative and referendum. Instead he cares about who can participate, and he believes a broad range of people should be allowed to. Vanderhoef noted that this is the sticking point for her, that if they do not have ‘registered,’ then how do they know that people signing petitions are even U.S. citizens. Sullivan stated that his response would be how do they know that the
people who signed the petition to get Terry Branstad on the ballot were U.S. citizens. He responded that you do not know, that addresses are the only thing checked. Vanderhoef stated that there are a lot of individuals who do not even
know if they are an ‘eligible’ voter. She added that this is not an onerous task, and that these individuals do not appear to want to put forth the effort to find out. The discussion continued, with Members sharing their opinion on whether signers of petitions should be ‘qualified’ or ‘eligible.’ Chappell stated that to him it is much more than just signing a petition. He thinks it is akin to voting. Having said that, he questioned if someone who chooses not to register to vote should be able to dictate to the city council to adopt a certain measure.
Sullivan stated that he understands both Chappell’s and Vanderhoef’s points, but that he is really concerned about the point of view that if someone hasn’t done the necessary paperwork that they shouldn’t be heard. He added that there are
many people who do not want to register to vote, and who may do so on election day. He does not believe they should be left out of this particular process. Craig stated that there are other avenues for people to participate, such as coming to a
council meeting and speaking on an issue. Kubby noted that to her this process is what allows things to come ‘from the bottom up,’ and so she wants the broadest participation possible. She added that she would be in favor of going to
‘eligible,’ but that she is not sure how she feels about the number of signatures required for petitions. The discussion continued, with Chappell again giving his stance that if someone is going to require council to do something, that they should at least register to vote. That way the person can vote those council members in or out. Chappell added that worst case is you start having initiatives that go to the council, because most anyone can sign them, and then the council just keeps voting
things down. Members talked about the waste of time and money dealing with constant issues that go nowhere. Sullivan noted that staff would probably be spending a lot less time, and therefore money, verifying signatures. Kubby
asked if there wasn’t a time when it was ‘eligible,’ and then was changed to ‘qualified.’ Vanderhoef stated that she is not aware of this having been the case,
Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 3
and others agreed. Sullivan noted that the section was amended in 2005 but that it does not specify what was changed. Kubby stated that she was thinking it was some time ago, that it went back and forth several times. Atkins stated that Karr
would probably know the answer to this due to her longevity with the City. [Karr and Dilkes arrives; Voparil and Dulek left the meeting] Chappell asked Karr if in order to sign a petition if a signer has always had to be ‘qualified.’ She responded that it has been that way for the 30 years she has been with the City. Chappell suggested they find out where each of them stands on the issue and spoke briefly noting that it is a participatory democracy, that some choose to participate and some do not. By registering to vote, Chappell believes it shows that someone wants to participate in what happens where they live. Members continued to discuss the issue of registering to vote and what that privilege means. Sullivan stated that he believes it is wrong for the Commission to impose their vision of political participation on the people in this community. Vanderhoef reiterated that there is only one other city in the state that even allows the privilege of initiative and referendum. She stated that there is a
reason why such cities want participation by their citizens, as a group, not as ‘special.’ Vanderhoef believes that the way things are done here in Iowa City gives them the best of both worlds – it isn’t super-easy for anyone to sign a
petition, and there is a legal way for them to be able to sign petitions. She stated that this creates a participatory system. Discussion continued, with Kubby speaking to how many signatures have to be gathered in order for a petition to be valid. She stated that it is not easy, and that it takes a lot of conversation and education with the public. To her the ‘eligible’ stance means more participation and a bit less work to gather the necessary signatures. Chappell stated that he would have no problem making the change if
all that had to happen was the Council voting. The problem, to him, is that the process forces adoption of an issue, or an election. Sullivan stated that in his opinion, people need other recourses besides voting in elections. Allowing them
to sign petitions, even if not registered to vote, gives them that recourse. Craig stated that to say it is too hard to vote does not make sense to her, when she knows you can vote in all kinds of places anymore – the grocery store, a football
game, early voting. Chappell stated that he would like to go around and see where everyone stands
on this issue. He added that this issue will definitely be part of their public forum. Chappell began, stating that he is not supportive of a change from ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible.’ Atkins stated that he is more inclined to make the change to ‘eligible.’ Vanderhoef agreed with Chappell, that there should be no change. Schantz stated that he agrees with Atkins that a change should be made, and that he also believes the number of signatures should be raised a small amount. Sullivan stated that he agrees with Schantz and would like to see a change made. Craig stated that a change and an increase in the number of signatures is appealing to
her. Moyers-Stone stated that she is undecided at this point. She added that she came this morning believing she would not be supportive of a change, but after listening to the discussion this morning, she is now unsure. The act of
registering to vote, she believes, goes both ways. Shaw, who arrived late to the
Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 4
meeting, stated that he undecided at this point either. Chappell noted that at this point they have at least five Members supportive of a conditional change.
Chappell stated that he believes after the public forum they should be able to tackle this issue more directly and make some decisions. Sullivan asked what number Chappell is considering for signatures. Chappell stated that he does not have anything specific in mind, that it sounds like most are agreeable to a small increase. Craig suggested they look at what the population was at the time the 2,500 was adopted and increase it by a corresponding percentage of how the population has increased. Chappell asked that staff look into this for them. b. Election of Mayor – Chappell asked Schantz to begin the conversation on this issue, as this will be his last meeting ‘in person.’ Schantz stated that his initial instinct was that they should have a separate election for the mayor. After doing some research, he noted that this same issue has been on the Charter Review agenda almost every time. There has been support for it here and there, but it has never prevailed. He shared some of the examples where there are different
forms of management within a city, noting that here there is a council/manager system. He spoke about the Charter Commission guide and how it helped him to delve further into this issue. Speaking to the current system, Schantz noted that
what people like most about the current government is that the council works well together most of the time and that it is a fairly civil process that occurs. On the other side of the argument, however, which Schantz stated he favors, says that if you have a direct election, it enhances the person’s ability to lead the council into significant change. He added that other objections to this are that the person needs council experience. Schantz stated that he does not necessarily agree with this view and he gave some examples of where an elected mayor did not have previous council experience. He added that leadership ability would be
more important in this case. Discussion began with Kubby asking Schantz if an elected mayor would have
additional duties. Schantz stated not executive duties necessarily, but that he would have the mayor set the council agenda, something that he is shocked does not take place. Kubby also asked Schantz’s view on the mayor’s voting, if it
would be only to break a tie or if they would still be a member of the council and be one of seven in terms of voting. He responded that this is not a big issue for him, that he would most likely see the mayor being a regular voting member.
Chappell stated that the only real change being proposed is direct election and perhaps agenda setting as well. Schantz agreed, stating that it really would be only minor changes. He added that most cities the size of Iowa City do have an election for their mayor. Atkins spoke to the issues at hand, questioning the unintended consequence of such changes. He added that they should look at these carefully before making any recommendations. Kubby asked if Atkins had any examples of these unintended consequences. He replied that if the decision were made to have the mayor be the spokesperson for the city, then you have to
find a way for it to work, as the mayor becomes independent of the rest of the council. Vanderhoef stated that it can also become a case of two individuals running for mayor and the election becoming about an issue instead of someone
becoming the leader that is needed. Chappell stated that his concern about changing this is that it adds even more politics to the process. He likes the fact
Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 5
that this group of elected councilors decides who among them will be the leader, that the mayor has no other powers, and that the term is only two years. Kubby stated that in her opinion who is mayor sets the tone for how conversations are
going to happen, and how the community is welcomed or restricted, or both at the same time. She believes it makes a huge difference who the mayor is and the perceptions of people around this. Kubby stated that to her it is a fallacy to say that the selection process is people deciding who the best leader for the group is. She does not believe it is that clear, that it’s more about who the lowest common denominator is sometimes, and that there are a lot of compromises involved. Kubby continued, stating that the mayor does have the potential to have power, even under the current system. They are the spokesperson, and their leadership skills are what sets the tone. Chappell asked if having an election will tell them how the person elected will perform in this role then. Kubby responded that she believes how someone is as a candidate is exactly how they are as an elected official. She questioned if the current system works the way that Chappell outlined. Sullivan stated that he came into this argument supporting changing to a directly elected mayor; however, now he is split on the
issue. He stated that he agrees with Chappell on the current system being less political. Continuing, Sullivan stated that he also identifies with what Schantz and Kubby have said about there being a lot of value in having a mayor with the
citizens’ support and having a bit more power, such as setting the agenda. Kubby asked what is wrong with a political office being political, that she believes the word has taken on bad connotations over the years. Shaw stated that what he is hearing is leadership rather than the mayor being a one or two-issue mayor. He stated that he is interested in hearing what Schantz has to say about any specific leadership powers that were recommended in the Charter Review guide. Moyers-Stone stated that what she likes about the current system is that they are
not led by one person, but by a council of seven. Chappell spoke to what could be an unintended consequence of having a directly elected mayor, noting that the remaining council members are somewhat muted. He gave some examples
of how he believes this would happen, noting that he believes they would lose some of the richness of having diverse viewpoints of the councilors. Vanderhoef then spoke to her time on the council and how the mayoral seat was viewed.
Atkins spoke to unintended consequences, noting that it can be as trivial as where are we going to put the office for the mayor. Although it may sound silly,
he noted, these are very relevant issues. Atkins noted that they can always list what they believe to be important as far as policy-related issues being under the mayor’s discretion. He noted that Coralville, for example, has a separate mayor, and he does not get a vote, except to break a tie. He added that he would think the mayor should have a part in setting the agenda, as this can be a very powerful tool, but that not being able to have a vote is very concerning to him. Craig stated that she would like to stay with the current system of a selected mayor, but to give them power to set the agenda. Schantz stated that in the last
few discussions of this issue it has been a ‘zero sum game,’ that you would be taking something away from the council and giving it to the mayor. He stated that he does not see it this way, and that in fact, he does not believe that is how it
works. He questioned what the unintended consequences would truly be. Schantz also addressed the issue of ‘politics’ being involved, noting that politics
Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 6
is part of it. Kubby stated that leadership is going to happen one way or the other, and if it is not happening from the seven councilors, then the city manager has to be that leader. She stated that she would rather have this be with an
elected person, a stronger leader in her opinion. The discussion continued, with Chappell speaking to the issue of having the two best candidates running for mayor – one wins, but then you lose out on the leadership of the one who lost. With the current system, you can get both of those leaders on the council, and either one could be mayor. Shaw stated that he does not believe having a directly elected mayor will bring in politics that the city isn’t already accustomed to. He stated that the mayor is only going to be as effective as the authority given to the position. Continuing, Shaw also spoke to the issue of leadership characteristics, asking how this leader should be guided. Chappell again stated that he is not convinced the change is worth making here. Craig stated that all of the councilors are directly elected by the community now, so therefore the one who becomes mayor was directly elected. She added that she would not want to see the other council members shrink back from leading if
one of them becomes directly elected as mayor. Vanderhoef stated that she has heard of cities where it becomes a power struggle between the elected mayor and the city manager. She added that it is typically someone who is wanting
more control and basically is attempting to get rid of the manager. Chappell asked again where people stand on this issue. Sullivan stated that he is 51% to change to direct election. Vanderhoef stated that she is on the fence. Chappell stated that he remains unconvinced the change is worth making. Kubby is for elected mayor. Moyer-Stone stated she is for the current system. Craig agreed with no change, as did Atkins. Schantz stated that he is still the same. Shaw noted that he is unconvinced at this point, that he would like to hear
more on the issue and to do some research on it. Kubby noted that something they have more consensus on though would be adding agenda making to the list of duties. Schantz noted that Members can read more about this issue in pages
9-11 of the commentary, in the back section of the National Civic League’s guide. At this point Chappell noted that they need to move on. He stated that the next
agenda will include discussion about the meeting of the Citizens Police Review Board, as well as some talk about use of the word ‘person,’ and some other items as well.
c. Update – Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board – none d. Use of word “person” – none e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) - none PUBLIC COMMENT: Martha Hampel noted she was present at a meeting about a month ago, and stated that she came intending to make specific comments, but when she arrived the group was discussing whether someone was registered to vote or not. She stated that she feels there are a few Members who need to consider their station in life, and she spoke of how upset she is by what
Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 7
she has heard. She added that she was raised to vote, that she has always made it to the voting booth, but that people need to understand why someone is not registered to vote. Hampel continued about how poor some people are in the community, how some people are
just getting by, and that their opinions on social and political matters should not be less significant because they cannot register to vote. She asked the group to not discount someone’s signature on a petition, basically their opinion on something, just because they are not registered to vote. Hampel also spoke to the ‘qualified’ versus ‘eligible’ issue and the petition process. She noted how much work is involved in collecting just a single signature. She asked that the group consider the number of signatures required on a petition before they raise this number, and to not discount someone’s opinion when it comes to community matters. A brief discussion ensued about the number of signatures collected versus the number needed. Members asked Hampel for her opinion on the process and whether being ‘eligible’ would be easier in collecting signatures. PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 P.M.) a. Format – Karr noted that they have a draft agenda prepared, and if Members are agreeable, they can move forward as presented. She added that first and foremost, they
need to address the press release. In regards to the issue of initiative and referendum, she believes they need to add a paragraph to this with some questions, similar to the election of Mayor. The same is true for the issue of council compensation b. Televised – . The group also needs to decide if they want this forum televised live or whether they want it taped for rebroadcast only. Kubby stated that the format they are using makes it hard to do live. Others agreed. c. Publicity – Discussion ensued about having Chappell and Karr work on a more descriptive paragraph for the press release. Karr added that they can always add to this with a second release, but that with the upcoming holiday schedules, she believes it is important to get something out as soon as possible. They can always add something after the first of the year. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): December 23 – Chappell noted that Members should bring their calendars to this meeting so they can schedule their 2015 meetings. He noted that as they get closer to completing their work they may need to meet more often. Karr asked if there is a desire to have a second input session on their recommendations as well. Chappell stated that
he believes this will be one of the final things they do. Sullivan asked how these recommendations will go to Council, and Dilkes outlined the procedure. Sullivan suggested they schedule a longer meeting after the public forum in order to dig into
issues and possibly avoid more frequent meetings. January 6 January 7 (FORUM) (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 A.M., seconded by Moyers-Stone. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
December 9, 2014
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
December 9, 2014
Page 9
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
December 9, 2014
Page 10
Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 23, 2014 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. He noted that Commission
Member Schantz is joining them via conference telephone. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 12/09/14 – Chappell asked if there were any comments, concerns, or changes that need to be made to the minutes. Shaw noted that there is one change he would like to make last paragraph on page 3 and top of page 4, where it states: “Shaw…arrived late…has no opinion at this point either.”; and requested the record show he was undecided at that point. Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Atkins seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Karr provide information regarding initiative and referendum required signatures and census
numbers. Karr reported how the census figures would compare, if indeed it was solely based on census numbers. She shared census data provided by the Library, and then reported on the increase in signatures using the same percentage (.0533617%).
1970 population was 46,850; no fewer than 2,500 1980 population was 50,508; would have been no fewer than 2,695 1990 population was 59,735; would have been no fewer than 3,187
2000 population was 62,220; would have been no fewer than 3,320 2010 population was 67,862; would have been no fewer than 3,621 Kubby then stated that she had a question for the Commission. She noted that she will have a column coming out in the Press-Citizen on Saturday. In this column, she would like to write about the Commission’s January 7 meeting, basically using the press release. Kubby’s intention is not to give her opinions, but to say what the topics are and to perhaps give one sentence on two sides of each issue to try to encourage the public to attend. She asked if anyone had any concerns about her doing this. Several Members stated that they thought this would be a good idea.
Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 2
Kubby then asked if she could get a copy of the Charter in a Word document, and stated she wanted to play with the document and that it would be easier to have a Word version to do this
with. Karr will send to the Commission. Vanderhoef stated that she was looking at old minutes from the Charter Review Commission and noted that in 1984 a recommendation was made to Council to move the date of the Charter Review to one year following the census so that the numbers would be the most current. She noted that evidently Council did not wish to do this, and she stated that she believes it to still be a good idea just so they would have the most current census data to work with. Chappell asked that they add this topic to another agenda so that they can further discuss it. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Update – Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board – Chappell asked Karr when the CPRB meets next, and she responded that they do not meet again until February. She added that they have not yet had any discussion regarding Charter issues. Chappell continued, stating that they can
wait until the CPRB has this discussion. Kubby asked if they need to make a request to be on the CPRB’s agenda. Chappell responded he had already appeared at a Commission meeting. Karr stated that the CPRB is closely
watching the Commission’s work and monitoring the discussion. b. Use of the word ‘person’ – Chappell spoke to Kubby’s proposal regarding use
of the word ‘person.’ He read the definition of ‘person’ aloud, noting that Kubby’s proposal is that ‘person’ means ‘an individual.’ A new term would be ‘other entity,’ which would have the definition of ‘a firm, partnership, corporation, company association, political party, committee or any other legal entity.’ Chappell asked what Member’s thoughts are on this proposal, and whether they want to make a change to the current definition. Sullivan stated that he is not strongly in favor of this change, nor is he opposed to it. He added that he does not believe there is a problem to be solved, but that he does understand the morale type of argument of it and would not be opposed if others feel strongly about this.
Atkins then asked how they would be furthering the governing process by making these changes. Kubby responded that she does not believe it changes the process or what any person or entity’s rights and responsibilities are, but that it
clarifies this issue for the community, that it is more of a political piece than a process piece. Sullivan stated that they should give this consideration even though it is not a substantive change. Kubby noted that language indicates
values. Shaw stated that he would support the change with some modification. In regards to the newly added ‘other entity,’ he would remove ‘other’ and have it just say ‘entity.’ Chappell asked Dilkes if she had any legal concerns with the proposed change.
She responded that she has some concern about unintended consequences, but that at this point she is not sure what those might be. Moyers-Stone stated that she found their conversation regarding ‘citizen’ versus ‘resident’ to be more compelling than this. She believes that if they did make this change it would only make the Charter more ‘wordy.’ She questioned a person being an individual,
Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 3
asking if that means an individual human being, an individual resident of Iowa City. She believes that what they have now works and to make such changes would only create more questions.
Kubby stated that there are only four or five sections where they would need to make this change, and Dilkes asked if they could look at these sections again. Kubby continued, further explaining where she is proposing they make this change and why. Chappell noted that Kubby originally identified the following sections as needing this change: 1.03, 6.01 6.02, and 7.01. Members then reviewed each of these. Ultimately there was not a majority of Members wanting to pursue this change. c. Section 4.02, Accountability and Removal – Chappell then moved the discussion to Section 4.02, noting that this is one of the sections they left undecided after their initial review. He spoke to the issue, noting that they did find out that the city manager has a contract that spells out much of this, such as being entitled to three to six months of salary if terminated. Chappell noted that
he does not have any strong feelings toward changing this. He added that he would not want the Charter to make this amount any higher than two months salary, but that the Council can do what it wants in this matter.
Shaw stated that he would propose that the phrase ‘not less than two month’s salary’ be changed to ‘termination pay as stated in the city manager’s contract,’ or something similar to this. He further explained why he is suggesting this, noting that basically this is paying someone to leave. Others disagreed, stating that they believe this sentence is not necessary and should be removed. Chappell asked if this was put in the Charter due to a time when written contracts were less likely to come into play.
Reviewing the proposal, Chappell noted that it would read: a) The city manager is under the direction and supervision of the council and holds office at its
pleasure. The rest of Section ‘a’ would then be deleted. He asked how Members felt about this proposed change. Dilkes reviewed some of the history, noting that there was the desire to provide a minimum amount of protection in
order to get qualified city managers, but that she does not have any major concerns with this. She gave some examples of arguments that could be used, however, if the ‘contract’ portion were removed. Kubby suggested having a
sentence that refers to there being a contract, and Chappell suggested a phrase be added to the first sentence: “…consistent with any contract…”. Discussion continued regarding whether or not to have ‘contract’ in the first sentence. Dilkes agreed that Chappell’s suggestion of adding something to the first sentence, which would contain the reference to there being a contract, would probably be the best way to go here. Members continued with whether or not to add wording regarding a ‘contract’ or ‘employment agreement’ to this sentence.
Chappell reviewed the wording for the second sentence: A city manager removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay consistent with any
employment agreement between the city manager and council. He asked if this covers the sentiment of the change they have been trying to make. Dilkes
Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 4
suggested it read ‘as provided by contract’ instead, and she re-read the sentence: A city manager removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay as provided by contract. Schantz suggested they add ‘if any’ to
the end of the sentence. He further explained his feelings on this matter, noting that he believes they do not want to give the Charter too much power in this regard. Chappell asked if others would like to add ‘if any’ to this second sentence. Kubby stated that she does not believe it to be necessary, as contracts will typically always have a termination pay clause in them and others agreed. Members then agreed to the discussed changes in Section 4.02. d. Article 6, Campaign Contributions and Expenditures – Chappell moved to Article 6 next, noting that they have not tentatively approved any of this section. Dilkes noted that there is one minor change in Section 6.03 – the chapter is now 68A instead of 56. Moyers-Stone asked if there are any State rules regarding campaign contributions. Dilkes responded that there are none regarding amounts, but that there are a lot of requirements regarding disclosure. Chappell asked if there were any proposed changes for 6.01, 6.02, or 6.03, other than the
chapter number that Dilkes referred to. Members agreed to tentatively approve Article 6 as discussed. e. Section 7.03(c), Petitions, Affidavit of Circulator – Moving on, Chappell noted that they tentatively approved some parts of Section 7, but that others are waiting for the decision on ‘qualified’ versus ‘eligible.’ Looking at 7.03(a), Chappell stated that they may want to have this discussion after their public forum. On (c), the only possible change would be replacing ‘a qualified’ with ‘an eligible.’ Members agreed to tentatively approve this section. f. Section 7.07, Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or Req. –
Chappell noted that they had quite a bit of discussion previously about whether this section should change or remain the same. He asked Dilkes if she had any further thoughts on this section. She responded that she had a note that they
were considering eliminating ‘which are higher or more stringent than’ and change it to ‘that are.’ Others spoke to what their notes on this topic were and what they remember the changes to be. Chappell noted that it would read as
follows: ‘The council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum, which are inconsistent with those imposed by this Charter.’ Kubby stated that keeping the second part of the
sentence allows council, by ordinance, to make clarifications and small changes. Without this sentence, she noted that they would not be able to do this without a Charter amendment. Dilkes spoke to this section, stating that it would actually be best to end the sentence after the word ‘referendum.’ She noted why she suggests this, noting that it really is not necessary to have this here. Atkins noted that he is looking at the word ‘may,’ wondering if that shouldn’t be changed to ‘shall.’ After further discussion, it was decided to put a period after
‘referendum’ and to change ‘may’ to ‘shall.’ Members then tentatively approved this section. g. Section 8.02, Charter Review Commission – Chappell stated that they have not yet touched this section. Sullivan spoke to the timing of this Commission,
Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 5
noting that the next one would either have to be three or four years too early, or four or five years too late. Chappell stated that he believes they have better information each year on population. Karr agreed, stating that they can gather
data in a more current manner now. Members continued to speak to population numbers. Sullivan stated that the times they need actual up-to-date, valid census data is pretty small. He questioned if there are really that many scenarios where they would need to rely on up-to-date population numbers. Members continued to discuss this issue and whether changing the Charter Review timeline would be helpful or not. Karr stated that with the present language it says ‘at least once every 10 years.’ She noted that if the population were to spike, the council could at any point in time call for this review to take place. Atkins noted that census information is very important to the city administration as it affects eligibilities, for example. After further discussion, Members agreed to tentatively approve this section of the Charter. h. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) – PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 P.M.)
Chappell stated that they are close to having tentative approval on everything but those topics being discussed at the January 7 forum. This should help them narrow their work significantly after the forum. He added that if anyone has something they would like to add to the public forum agenda, to send him an email regarding this. The Commission will plan to review the forum and how they plan to proceed with it while at the January 6 meeting. Dilkes noted that after the forum Members will receive a new red-lined version of the Charter that they can use in their review. Karr asked if any supplies would be needed for the public forum, such as flip charts. Members briefly discussed this and the use of them in these small settings. Atkins asked how they will be expected to participate in this forum, and if they are speaking as Commission Members or individuals. Chappell further explained what he sees their roles as, which is to try to get the public to give their opinions on these specific issues. Kubby gave some
examples of how they can try to get people to open up more and give their opinions. Shaw spoke to the need for them as facilitators in getting the discussion going, but added that he does not see a lot of back-and-forth taking place. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): Chappell asked if the meeting time still works for everyone. He stated that he would like to plan on
having the same Tuesday morning meetings through March, at which point they can decide how to proceed. He added that he believes after the public forum, their work will become more narrowed and they will have less issues to discuss. January 6 – to discuss forum agenda January 7 (FORUM) (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 8
Charter Review Commission January 6, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 6, 2015 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (via telephone), Melvin Shaw (arrived 7:47), Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 12/23/14 – Vanderhoef moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Kubby seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Shaw absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. DISCUSSION OF THE PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 P.M.) Chappell stated that they need to discuss a few items prior to tomorrow’s forum. He suggested
the Commission break into four groups with two Members in each group. This way there is a Commission Member to guide the discussion and another to take notes during the discussion. Chappell then spoke to the amount of time spent on each topic, stating that previously (10 years
ago) they did 25 minutes per topic, with four distinct topics. He added that this seems excessive to him. He would like to plan for 20 minutes per topic and asked what the other Members would like to do. Vanderhoef asked how well the conversation went during the 25-minute period last
time and if it tapered off quickly. Chappell stated that he really does not remember too well how it went, but that the discussion was good and those in attendance appeared to be very appreciative of being able to offer their opinions. Kubby stated that 20 minutes should be sufficient and others agreed. Chappell then spoke to the introduction time, noting that he does not see this taking 15 minutes. He would like to do a brief introduction as to where the Commission is in the process, what they have done so far, and where they are headed, and then do an introduction of the first topic. Kubby stated that it would probably be a good idea to introduce the process once they break into small groups. Chappell then asked Members how long overall they would like this forum to
Charter Review Commission January 6, 2015 Page 2
be. With the specific topics they have in mind, they would use up an hour and a half with 20 minutes per topic. Kubby stated that she believes 8:00 P.M. would give them plenty of time and others agreed. Kubby added that it would be helpful if someone could come around to the
groups when they have approximately five minutes left and let them know that their time is almost up. She stated that it can be hard to keep track of time when involved in these discussions. Sullivan stated that he hates to give a set end time, especially if someone comes to the forum wanting to share their thoughts and things become rushed. Kubby stated that they could advertise 8:00 P.M. as the end time, but if discussion is still ongoing, they can always stay. Karr asked if Members want a timeframe for comments put on the meeting agenda. Chappell and others stated that most people come with the knowledge of having five minutes to speak. Dilkes stated that if there is not going to be an actual end time, they really should not put this on their agenda. She suggested they not put anything if they are going to leave it open to continue. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Karr noting that if they put 8:00 P.M. and no one comes after 7:30, they do have to stay until 8:00. Chappell suggested wording to the effect of ‘up until 8:00’ or something similar. Kubby suggested they state this in the introductory remarks
that they hope to end around 8:00 P.M. After further discussion, Members agreed that there would be no set ending time and no notation on length of comments on the agenda. Chappell concluded that Members should be the ones reporting out at the end on each topic.
Chappell then spoke to the ‘facilitator tips’ that Members received, asking Members if they have any questions regarding these. He reviewed how they can keep people focused on the specific topic. There was agreement to have copies of the Charter and press release available for people to review during the forum. Karr stated that one issue that came up last time was people wanting to speak on one topic in particular and not being able to stay for the entire session. She asked if Members are willing to deviate somewhat for this type of situation. Chappell stated that he is sure Members can work with individuals should this arise.
Shaw asked how they plan to break into pairs for the forum as they have an odd number of Members. Chappell responded that Schantz will not be able to attend, leaving them with an
even number of Members. He then suggested the pairings of Kubby and Atkins, Moyers-Stone and Shaw, Sullivan and Vanderhoef, and Craig and Chappell. Chappell added that Members can decide themselves who will facilitate and who will take notes. He suggested that topics be
introduced, comments then heard, and that then Members try to challenge people’s reactions to see if they can see any downside to possible amendments. Atkins asked if they would be pushing negative aspects by doing this early on. Chappell stated that his sense is they are just
asking people if they see any, that they are not introducing them into the discussion necessarily. Shaw asked if their notes from the forum will be typed prior to their next meeting, and Karr stated that these notes will be typed and become part of the minutes. Sullivan asked if there will be nametags available. Karr stated that they can have these pre-made for Commission Members. She asked if they also want temporary ones for the public to use and Members stated that they would like to have these. Members continued to discuss how best to take notes during the forum, with Chappell stating that his general sense is that they do
not need to single out people by name for reporting purposes; as much as needing to get the ideas down that come out of their group.
Members continued to talk about the forum. Questions were also asked about how the reporting-out process is expected to go. Discussion was also held on room set-up and how this
Charter Review Commission January 6, 2015 Page 3
is expected to be handled. Members then spoke to group formation and how they want to handle this aspect. This led to a brief discussion of the availability of tables, and whether they would be round or rectangular. Karr stated that one issue that may come up is ‘what’s next’ for
the group. She asked if the group is agreeable to the meeting schedule that Chappell suggested at the last meeting and if another forum is going to be held, adding that the public is interested in what is happening next. Kubby noted that they had talked about having another forum after they have a final draft to share. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): Chappell spoke to the meeting schedule and the possibility of shooting for the redlined draft and final public hearing at the end of February. He asked what schedules are like during the spring
break period, and several Members noted they would be absent. Chappell asked if February 17 or 24 would work for the next forum. Members will check their calendars and staff will check room availability. Atkins will be gone for two weeks starting February 18. Chappell asked that
everyone check their calendars. He also suggested they add an extra meeting on March 3, in addition to their March 10 and 24 meetings. January 7 (FORUM) January 13 January 27 February 10 February 24 March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 4
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 6
Charter Review Commission January 7, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION – COMMUNITY FORUM JANUARY 7, 2015 – 6:00 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR:
Chair Chappell welcomed everyone to the second public forum on the decennial review of the City Charter. Chappell invited everyone interested to attend the Commission’s regular meeting held at 7:45 AM twice on a month generally on Tuesdays. Information, including agendas and
minutes, can be found on the Iowa City website. Chappell stated the Commission members were appointed by the City Council for a one year to review the City Charter and make recommendations to the Council on any changes. The City Council may accept, reject, or send the recommendations to the voters. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS: Commission Members introduced themselves. BREAK OUT INTO SMALL GROUPS
Chappell reviewed the process the forum would take by stating the first part would be breaking into four groups, with each groups discussing the four target topics (election of mayor; district representation; initiative and referendum; Council compensation) identified. Each group would
contain two Commission members, one designated to be the recorder and would be reporting back to the full group, and the second to serve more as a facilitator and keep the conversation going. Chappell stated the Commission had not formed any recommendations and wanted to
hear more comments. Chappell concluded by saying each group would discuss each of the four topics for 20 minutes; then the Commission would reconvene and each group “report out” on each topic to the entire group. At the conclusion of the reports the Commission would be available to hear from those present in a more public hearing type of meeting, and anyone with anything to add to the reports and wishing to discuss something new could do so. Chappell stated they hoped to conclude the forum around 8:00 P.M. [The Commission and those present broke into 4 groups]
Charter Review Commission January 7, 2015 Page 2 REPORTS OF SMALL GROUPS: Election of Mayor Group 1 Chappell stated that overall there was a common theme of a desire for change in the City Council. With respect to changing how the mayor is selected, he noted that there was a lot of support for making this change. Comments included the feeling that the current system is elitist; that there is too much in-fighting with the current selection process; that the process is cliquish; as well as a desire for a stronger mayor. Chappell noted that participants felt that by directly electing the mayor, it would help to create the perception of there being a better ‘connection’ to the public. Other comments regarding direct election of the mayor included things like the election for the mayor would be more issue-specific; it may help with voter apathy; and may also be a balance of power for the City Manager. On the other side of this issue, however, Chappell noted that some believe that making this change really won’t help address the issues and concerns being discussed.
Group 2 Kubby reported that there was an argument over the issue of selection of the mayor from the
seven elected councilors versus a directly elected mayor, and how there is more turnover of mayor with the current system. With a directly elected mayor, it was noted that there could be political entrenchment with the office. Kubby noted that the group then began talking about term limits and that there was disagreement on this, if there is an elected mayor. The discussion in this group also went to the issue of the Charter remaining the same, but that there be more transparency in how the mayor is selected from amongst their peers. By putting something in the Charter to this effect, the group felt it would make the process be more transparent.
Group 3 Sullivan reported that participants were on both sides of the issue, with some believing there is no need to change the Charter. The comment was made that people may be more engaged with an elected mayor. He also stated that in his group it was also felt that it is important for the mayor to build consensus, therefore the council should select the mayor. Another comment made was that only about 10% of the community actually elects the council members.
Group 4 Moyers-Stone reported her group presented the idea that having an elected mayor may spur
more voter turnout and to have more interest in the election. On the other side, the current system means the mayor builds consensus among the council. Comments continued in this group with the idea of having an election for the mayor, after the election for council members. DISTRICT REPRESENTATION Group 1 Chappell reported support for a change, noting that people might feel that their vote makes
more of a difference if they were voting for just their district representative. Also it would be less confusing to explain to others how the system works here. Chappell stated that there was some support for even more districts than are currently in place, and also the thought that having pure
districts might result in more issues being brought forward for discussion. On the other side of
Charter Review Commission January 7, 2015 Page 3
this argument, there was the thought that this would not work if changes are made to the mayor selection process.
Group 3 Sullivan shared his group’s comments on the district issue, first being that the two best candidates may live next door to each other and that there should be no point in eliminating them for this reason. The confusion of the system was also noted. Another idea is to have all of the public vote in the primaries so that things are consistent. Group 4 Moyers-Stone stated that one of the downsides to the district issue is that a candidate may not necessarily be tied to the district that they represent. Also noted was that the current system works well. She stated that her group had some discussion about the districts and whether four districts and three at-large would change the way people perceive the system. Group 2 Kubby noted that having all the candidates be at-large, and the pros and cons of this type of
arrangement. She stated that the group felt that recruiting candidates was more important, and not having geography be a restriction for recruiting candidates. On the downside though was the idea that all of the candidates might come from one area of town, leaving others to feel they
are not represented very well. Kubby noted that some thought there should be more district representation than at-large, and that some believe the current system dilutes district voices. Initiative and Referendum Group 3 Sullivan reported one point raised was that the Charter Preamble itself states that the Iowa City government belongs to all its citizens, not just to registered voters. Another thought was that
those who are not currently registered are still paying local sales tax, property taxes, etc., in the community yet can’t sign petitions. The group also talked about being open to allowing eligible electors to sign petitions, as long as the threshold for signatures is increased. Comments were
also made as to the amount of time the Clerk’s office must spend comparing petition signatures to voter registrations.
Group 2 Kubby stated that some felt very strongly that the least someone can do is register to vote in order to sign a petition that compels the government to act. Others felt just as strongly that
anyone who is eligible to vote and could potentially register by the time of the election, should be able to petition their government for legislative change or reversal of something that is already on the books. She stated that as far as the number of signatures required, a few felt it should not change. Group 4 Moyers-Stone stated a similar concern about how you would certify each signature. She stated that some felt the current system works well and is responsive. In favor of changing to ‘eligible
electors,’ was the idea that it allows people the chance to affect change in city government and is a way to be heard. In regards to the number of signatures, this group did not come to a consensus, but the topic was part of their discussion.
Charter Review Commission January 7, 2015 Page 4
Group 1 Chappell stated there was a lot of support for making the change, with some believing the current system shows those who are engaged enough that they have registered to vote. Many
believed that there is too much staff time involved in the checking of signatures, and that there are too many signatures rejected when they shouldn’t be. Council Compensation Group 2 Kubby noted that her group was not interested in having a ‘salary’ for council members. Many felt that compensation should be for community service and not a motivator to run for office. Discussion also centered on how compensation might open up the demographic to a broader spectrum of people being candidates for council. Kubby stated that current compensation for councilors is not quite minimum wage, although it is not meant to be a living wage. She shared that one of the group’s suggestions was to bump up the compensation a little bit, and to keep this as part of the Charter so the council itself does not have to deal with the matter.
Group 3 Sullivan stated that in his group some were receptive to raising the compensation, but that it should not be done in the Charter. It was felt that this recommendation could be made outside
of the Charter recommendations. Other comments included how the School Board members are not compensated, even though their responsibilities are equal to council members’. Another sentiment was that the idea is to encourage public service, not public servitude. Group 4 Moyers-Stone added that her group made a lot of the previous comments. She added that the general feeling was that the current compensation is too low, but that it should not be raised to the level of a full-time job.
Group 1 Chappell stated that his group had a lot of support for increasing the amount of compensation,
with the thought that more people could afford to run. There was also the thought that this would give more varied participation from the community. He noted that some felt the councilor positions should be at least half-time equivalent jobs, while others believe them to be full-time
positions. The question was also raised about how you would guarantee participation by councilors if there was an increase in compensation, with the concern that the increase may not bring about good changes.
Group 4 (continued) Moyers-Stone added that in her group it was noted that if more compensation were given, the money would have to come from somewhere, and the question then became where would this come from. Group 2 (continued) Kubby stated that her group did not have specific concerns about this issue, as the amount is
not that much.
Charter Review Commission January 7, 2015 Page 5 OPEN DISCUSSION OF CHARTER: Chappell then opened up the discussion for further input from participants. He noted that the
Commission plans to have another public hearing once they have a redlined version of the Charter available for review. This will then give the public a chance to react to the proposed amendments to the Charter, before the Commission finalizes their report. Gary Gusen noted that in his group there were two comments about the initiative and referendum issue that were made. One was that there is a safe-guard against false signatures to a petition, in that those people won’t get to vote on the issue once it is brought to election. The other point made referred to the requirements in the Charter for a petition and how they are so much more restrictive and burdensome than the State requirements. Chappell then reminded everyone present that there is an email address for the Charter Review Commission should they want to submit their comments in that manner – citycharter@iowa-city.org.
Mike Carberry asked how the final recommendation process works, and whether these go directly to the Council or whether some qualified electors need to work to put these changes on the ballot. Chappell explained that once the Commission finalizes their report, they will make
their recommendations to the Council. The Council then has the choice of either adopting these recommendations or putting them to a vote. Carberry then asked if the Council has to accept the recommendations as a whole or if they can line-item veto some of it. Kubby explained that it
is not an all or nothing process, that Council can decide which to adopt and which to send to ballot. Caroline Dieterle read from her prepared statement, noting that one point she would like to make is that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and that it is necessary for citizens to occasionally question authority. She added that those who are elected are regular people just like everyone else, and that sometimes the citizens have to lead so that the leaders will follow. She gave the example of the red-light cameras. She noted that less than two years after this effort, people are finding out that red-light cameras are nothing but a money-making scheme. Sullivan moved to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. (Correspondence from: Jay Honohan; Tim Weitzel; David Clark; Vanessa Ryan; Caroline Dieterle; Martha Hampel; Harry Olmstead) The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent.
Bob Welsh then spoke, thanking the Commission Members for their time and consideration. Secondly, he asked that they consider what would most empower the citizens of Iowa City as they go through their process. He stated that he believes this would bring about a vitality that is
needed. Martha Hampel read from her prepared statement. In reference to Commission comments at previous meetings, she stated that making the assumption that someone who is not registered to vote does not read the paper or keep themselves informed is ridiculous. Hampel also spoke to the process of checking petition signatures and how many end up being denied when addresses don’t match, for example. Hampel continued to read from her statement, noting some of the comments made by a Commission Member at a recent meeting. She stated that no one needs to be a registered voter to address the city council, nor to be a part of public forums such as this one. She also reiterated what the Iowa Code is for signing a petition,
Charter Review Commission January 7, 2015 Page 6
questioning why Iowa City’s Charter holds this to a higher standard. Hampel asked that the Commission consider removing the qualified elector requirement for those signing initiative and referendum petitions.
Aleksey Gurtovoy stated that he spoke at the previous public forum on the issue of ‘eligible’ versus ‘qualified’, and what the minimum number of signatures might be under this new scenario. He added that he believes the 2,500 number is arbitrary to begin with and he gave some examples of why he says this; he noted petitions that would change the City Code versus those that would change the City Charter; explained how they have two petition processes currently, with one conforming to the Iowa code. Petitions to change the City Code come under Home Rule. He continued, giving some examples for the arguments being made. Eli Shepherd stated that he just wanted to second some of the comments previously made, one being that when the Commission is considering its recommendations that they consider what would most empower the citizens of Iowa City. He also stated that he wanted to second what Harry Olmstead emailed to the Commission, that there needs to be more community outreach on this process as many people are unable to attend such public forums. Shepherd then stated
that in reference to council compensation, he would be in support of anything that would make the positions more accessible to lower-income citizens. UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE: January 13 January 27 February 10 February 24 March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Chappell adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M.
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X O/
E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 9
Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2015 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Adam Sullivan Members Absent: Anna Moyers-Stone, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 01/06/15 and 01/07/15 b. Email from Bob Elliott Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, Moyers-Stone and Vanderhoef absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Chappell noted that he met with the Sunrise Optimist Club that morning and gave them an overview of what the Commission is doing, and encouraged the group to weigh in. Kubby asked what type of questions the group had. Chappell noted that one point raised was in
regards to the ‘qualified’ versus ‘eligible’ issue and whether you would lose the verification step in this process. Another comment was in regards to Council compensation and what might be recommended here. Chappell then stated that last Thursday he spoke to the Chamber’s Local
Government Committee, basically giving the same information, and discussing the process that the Charter Review Commission has been following. REVIEW CHARTER AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND PUBLIC FORUM: Chappell briefly discussed whether everyone wanted their notes from the forum typed up for distribution or if they felt the minutes captured everything okay. Sullivan, Shaw, and Atkins stated that they believe their notes were captured in the minutes. Karr stated that she can send the notes to Chappell for his review, and he could notify her if he felt the notes should be typed up and distributed. Chappell agreed that this would be a good idea. Reviewing what their group’s input was, Chappell noted that his group was very consistent with wanting ‘change.’
Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 2
Council compensation, Chappell asked if this is still an issue and what the Members think about this. Sullivan stated that one comment he heard was that there is a feeling it should be increased, but that it should not be built into the Charter. One reason being that this is not the
appropriate place, but the other is that this should not be an automatic mechanism, especially in lean budgetary times, when a council may wish to not make an increase here. He believes they should recommend to Council, outside of the Charter recommendations, that they look at this issue separately. Shaw stated that he is not certain that this Commission should suggest a particular salary or percentage of increase for the council. He added that he believes it is fine the way it is in the Charter now. Kubby stated that she heard people saying it should be increased. Shaw asked to what amount, that he has not yet heard a satisfactory formula for such an increase. He agreed that council is underpaid for all they do, but that he is not sure what amounts they should even consider. Kubby stated that by putting something in the Charter itself it would then be structural, which would not give council any flexibility. She believes that this is okay though. However, she does not believe that an actual number should be put in the Charter, that something either needs to be tied to the CPI or a percent of median income, so that it is a standard. Atkins stated that he is not comfortable with formulas that you put into something, such as the Charter. Kubby stated that if you were to put in a set amount,
then it is stagnant for the next 10 years, until the Charter is reviewed again. Craig stated that she believes they should leave this as is in the Charter and then make a recommendation that a committee review this. She added that she heard several comments at the forum that the
compensation should be increased, some to as much as $37,500 for a council member and $75,000 for the mayor. Sullivan stated that he believes Council needs to hear this from their constituents and he doubts they are. Shaw noted that under Section 2.06 it states that ‘The council by ordinance shall prescribe the compensation for the mayor and other council members.’ Therefore, he believes this addresses some of the issue of how often their compensation can be changed. Chappell then asked Schantz what his feelings are on this issue. Schantz stated that he believes it
should be changed, that a recommendation would not address the basic problem – that the council is conflicted in the issue of increasing compensation. He believes it is time to come up with some language for the Charter that would address this. Sullivan asked for some
clarification on how this process was handled in the past, with recommending language and substantive changes to the Charter. Chappell stated that ultimately if there is no consensus on a change, then it does not move forward. At this point he asked if others want to do something
here, stating that he is not inclined to make a change in the Charter. He believes that the compensation is too low; however, he is unsure of how to reach a consensus on what they should do. He is less convinced that it should be this Commission making the change and
deciding what the change should be. Craig noted that some in her group made the comment that even if there is an increase, what guarantees that something will change here. Chappell asked again if there is consensus to suggest a change. He noted that Kubby and Schantz both appear to feel strongly about this issue, and he suggested they write up a proposal prior to the next meeting. At that point they can find out what the absent Members think, as well as the rest of the Commission. Qualified versus eligible (signatures for initiative and referendum petitions) - Chappell
stated his sense is that they have heard a lot of the same arguments regarding this matter. He has not changed his mind on the matter, and he asked where others stand. Previously there was a consensus to make the change from “qualified” to “eligible.” Schantz stated that he is on
the ‘eligible’ side. Sullivan stated that he is also interested in changing to ‘eligible.’ He noted that his group at the forum had a couple of people who were not aware of this issue, and both
Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 3
agreed that ‘eligible’ made sense. He added that one participant was strongly in favor of ‘qualified’ and keeping that in place. This person did, however, agree that if the number of signatures on petitions were increased that they could agree to ‘eligible,’ as well. Shaw stated
that he is leaning towards ‘eligible’ at this point, but that he could change this if the signature number were not increased. He added that he does not want the process to be so easy that people are bringing frivolous matters forward that could result in costly elections. Kubby questioned the actual numbers of initiative versus referendum petitions. Dilkes noted that this is a whole discussion in and of itself because it’s actually fairly simple to craft something and frame it as an initiative or a referendum, depending on what suits your purposes. Chappell then asked Schantz if he supports bumping up the number of signatures required on petitions. Schantz stated that his first thought would be to leave it as is, but that he is flexible. Chappell then asked Atkins where he stands on the issue. Atkins replied that he is on the ‘eligible’ side, but that when it comes to changing the Charter itself, for example, it should be harder to do. He believes that since it is a policy of the City to encourage participation by the community members that ‘eligible’ makes more sense. Dilkes noted that it is not her sense that getting that number is the problem for people who want the change to “eligible” so much as not
knowing how many you collect are going to be rejected. Karr noted that there is a second chance to get the required signatures, that the City gives people the chance to complete this process. Chappell asked if Atkins believes the number of signatures should be bumped up, and
he agreed that it should, along with the change to ‘eligible.’ Craig stated that she too would agree to ‘eligible’ but that the number of signatures should be increased more than a little. She gave an example of times where making this process ‘too easy’ could cause some major issues for the community. Kubby stated that it really does take some effort to get even the 2,500 signatures, and she is for the change to ‘eligible’ but believes they should keep the number of signatures the same. Discussion continued, with Members talking about the possible unintended consequences of
changes to this process. Shaw stated that he believes that changing it to ‘eligible’ and increasing the number of signatures provides a balance for those who put earnest effort in collecting signatures. He added that he does not believe it is anyone’s intention to discourage
anyone from doing this. The ease with which it could be done if changed to ‘eligible,’ however, makes him believe the number needs to increase. Shaw stated that as far as the number of signatures, something less than 5,000 would probably be a good idea. Sullivan stated that he
believes it is a misplaced fear that under a different system they may have superfluous referenda. He stated that they have not seen this type of behavior yet, and he doubts that it would occur. Secondly, if someone wanted to do this now they could petition the City for
Charter amendments. Dilkes noted that the Supreme Court has said it has to be a form of government amendment in order to amend the Charter, not just any legislative issue. Chappell stated that he is not too concerned that this would happen either. Shaw asked if a change to ‘eligible’ would affect at all City staff and the work that they do. Karr clarified the petition review process for candidates running for office, noting that will be handled by the County and not the City Clerk starting this year, versus the review of initiative and referendum petitions. Candidate papers were basically reviewed for an Iowa City address and a signature. The initiative and referendum review started with registered voter rolls. Karr questioned what Clinton’s language
is on this, as they are the only other city that does initiative and referendum here in Iowa. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Dilkes and Karr providing clarification as needed.
Chappell summarized where they are with this issue, having six people who are supportive of a change. He proposed that prior to the next meeting he will look at what specific changes need
Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 4
to be made with regard to swapping ‘qualified’ with ‘eligible.’ He will run this by Dilkes for review and have it available prior to the next meeting. He asked that Members come back with any proposals they may have as to the number of signatures. He noted that Kubby would like no
change, as does Schantz. Sullivan, Shaw, Atkins, and Craig are for an increased number of signatures.
District representation – Chappell noted that time was running out and asked if anyone has heard anything new on this issue. Sullivan stated that he heard the idea of keeping everything the same, except opening up the primaries to all voters. Atkins stated that he got the impression from his group that ‘districts’ were like ‘wards’ in that if you lived in the district, you ran in that district. Kubby added that some wanted to switch to a 4/3 mix, and as a group this Commission has not wanted to do that, that everyone wants to maintain a majority at-large. She stated that one suggestion was by someone from the Chamber, who suggested all seats be at-large for recruitment purposes, but that no one else agreed with this. Craig stated that a person in her group suggested up to 11 districts, all at-large. She added that some felt that having four districts would give more representation to different areas of the city. Karr reviewed the current process that takes place after each decennial census, noting districts are ‘balanced’
and regulated by the state. Kubby stated that she continues to want true districts, as long as they have four at-large. She believes that people will feel more represented by the district seats. She also spoke to the potential for campaigns being different, should different people run
for seats in their district. Shaw noted that they have previously discussed the issue of going to all districts and how these could become little ‘fiefdoms’ or issue-oriented districts. He questioned if having this type of system would even be good for the city as a whole. Kubby responded that perhaps having districts would give more voice to some of these important issues, since council members would be more accountable to that geography. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Chappell stating that what he likes about the current system is that it is set up so that the
districts pick their ‘all-star,’ who would be best to represent them. Kubby again stated that having it be a 4/3 split (district/at-large), she believes, gives more balance to the system. Chappell stated that he feels that he can go to any one of the council members and express his
concerns, not just the councilor for his district. They all represent the city as a whole. He added that saying the current system is ‘too hard to explain’ is not reason enough to make this change.
Kubby continued to speak to her reasons for making a change to pure districts. She stated that she believes some issues do not get the attention they deserve, and that such a change would help to deter this problem. Craig stated that you would hope anyone who is running would bring
up such important issues and that they are looking out for the city as a whole, not just their district. Members continued to share their opinions regarding a pure district setup. Chappell asked Schantz where he stands on this issue. He noted that he is really not sure at this point. Schantz added that he believes the compromise that was made to achieve the current system has worked pretty well. He is not in favor of having a completely at-large process, and that he is somewhat sensitive to the concerns of having ‘ward-like’ behavior if they move in that direction. However, he may be open to some changes to the current system, although he leans towards leaving it as is. Shaw asked if Kubby could put together a draft of what Section 2.01 would look
like, and she was agreeable to do this. Atkins added that if they were to go with pure districts, there could be the chance of someone coming in with no competition. Members noted that this has occurred under the current Charter.
Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 5
Election of Mayor – Schantz stated he will come up with a draft for the ‘election of mayor’ issue for Members to review. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM: Chappell then turned the discussion to the third public forum. He noted that their hope is to have the Charter review complete and a redline version available for review by that date. He suggested they pick February 24 as the public forum and others agreed. Atkins noted that he is unavailable that date. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): Schantz noted that he has a conflict for the next meeting but stated he would provide information on ‘election of mayor’. January 27 – meeting will run until 10:00 A.M. February 10 February 24
March 3 March 10 March 24
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Atkins moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 7-0, Moyers-Stone and Vanderhoef absent.
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 01/13/15 01/27/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X O/
E
X O/
E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X O/
E
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X O
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2015 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Mark Schantz (8:15 via telephone; left 8:20 due to phone problems), Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef (left at 9:30)
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 01/13/15 – b. Correspondence from: 1) Dave Martin; 2) Rita Bettis; 3) Vanessa Ryan; 4) Mary Murphy; 5) copy of Corridor Business Journal editorial (Chappell); and 6) Tom Carsner Chappell asked if there was any discussion on the correspondence they have received. Kubby
stated that she would like to hear Dilkes’ response to Rita Bettis’ letter. Dilkes stated that she has already given the Commission a memo on the Constitutional issues and has also shared the statutory analysis on this issue. Kubby noted comments they have received regarding their
public input process and that it is too restrictive. Members asked if there were any specific examples given. Chappell stated that he did not take the comment in quite the same way, that he heard that there should be more public outreach. Chappell stated that they have sought
comment on specific issues, and comments in general, since April 1 when the Commission began. Kubby spoke to what they could possibly be doing to make this process more helpful for the public. Chappell said that perhaps they will have time at the end of their review to address this question and get some feedback on what they could have done better in the overall process. Atkins moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. Council Compensation – use of CPI language (Karr) – b. Initiative and Referendum petition language from Clinton, IA (Karr) –
c. Reports from Members Shaw stated that he recently received a phone call, in addition to several conversations he has had, regarding the direct election of the mayor, and the initiative and referendum issue. What he heard was to maintain the election of the mayor by the City Council. As to the initiative and referendum issue, Shaw has heard that if this were to be modified, then the number of required
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 2
signatures should be increased. Vanderhoef stated that she has had several phone messages, particularly on the election of the mayor issue. The comments have been the same as what Shaw has heard, to leave the selection of the mayor as it currently is. REVIEW CHARTER AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND PUBLIC FORUM: a. Election of Mayor Chappell asked how Members would like to proceed with ‘election of the mayor’ and ‘district
representation.’ Chappell reported that his notes show that there was not a majority of Members wanting to make a change to the mayoral selection process; noting that he likes the current process and believes it works well. Shaw stated that he read Kubby’s proposal and that
while it is persuasive, he is still not in favor of a change. Kubby spoke to why she believes they are ready for a change and further explained her stance on this issue. She stated that she believes this type of change helps them to create a different structure. Kubby noted that one
thing she left out of her suggestion was a term limit for the mayor. She believes the voters should determine this, but would be open to further discussion on it. Sullivan asked Kubby to speak to Schantz’s proposal for the section regarding powers of the mayor, etc. She noted that he spoke to the mayor powers and duties in B of his proposal rather the election process. Further discussion occurred later in the meeting. b. District Representation See discussion later in the meeting. c. Council Compensation
Chappell stated that they would begin with the council compensation issue, as they had two Members absent during last meeting’s discussion. He summarized the conversation from the last meeting, noting that those who were supportive of making a change to the Charter were
Atkins, Schantz, and Kubby; with Sullivan, Shaw, Craig, and Chappell wanting no change relative to council compensation. He asked Moyers-Stone and Vanderhoef for their opinions on this matter. Vanderhoef stated that she does not believe that this belongs in the Charter, first of
all; and believes the Charter should stay as is. Moyers-Stone stated that she also does not see a reason to change this section. She added that she has not heard enough talk about this, that it really does not appear to be an issue for most people. Chappell noted that he would like to move on then to the other items since this appears to not have a majority of the Members interested in recommending a change. Kubby stated that they did hear from the public on compensation, and that there was talk from many that the current compensation is too low, that it could be a possible obstacle to running for office. She added that she believes they need to make an “informal” recommendation to Council to look at the issue seriously and do something about it. She reiterated what had been said previously, that the compensation is ‘too low for the work that is expected’ of council
members. Chappell added that he is perfectly comfortable with making such a recommendation to Council in their final report. He asked if someone wanted to volunteer to come up with some language on this issue, and Kubby responded she would prepare something for the next
meeting. She stated that she does want this in the Charter and that she is passionate about the issue, as she believes it makes a big difference.
Chappell then asked if there was a motion to keep the Charter as it is, relative to council compensation. Vanderhoef moved to keep the language in the Charter as is, relative to
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 3
council compensation. Shaw seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-1, Kubby in the negative, Schantz absent. d. Initiative and Referendum Chappell summarized earlier discussion regarding ‘qualified’ versus ‘eligible, noting that those supportive of a change were Schantz, Sullivan, Shaw, Atkins, Craig, and Kubby; while not supportive of a change was Chappell. He noted that the majority of Members were also agreeable to an increase in the number of signatures required on a petition. Chappell stated
that he would agree that if they were to make a change they should increase this number. Moyers-Stone stated that she is also against making a change and briefly touched on why this process should be somewhat difficult to undertake. Vanderhoef spoke to input she received,
stating that if you are not a registered voter, you are not in the draw for jury duty, and that this is part of the participatory part of the overall process.
Chappell stated that he has written a preliminary draft of the changes that would be necessary to change ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible,’ and that he and Dilkes have had some conversations regarding this. Looking at the process that the Clerk’s office goes through currently, he added that they are trying to decide what steps still need to be a part of this. He hopes to have a draft ready for the Commission’s review prior to their next meeting. Chappell then asked to have a vote on this matter. Several Members stated that their vote would be predicated on the number of signatures required. Craig spoke to what she has heard about this issue, noting that if there is to be change, people need to then participate in the change. At this point, Schantz joined the conversation via telephone connection. Craig continued, sharing some information she found on a web site called Ballotpedia, similar to Wikipedia. She
added that she does not understand the reasons behind people not wanting to register to vote. Members spoke to online registration in the future and how this might change things. Kubby stated that by signing a petition; however, many people are making the first step towards
participating. Craig then responded to Kubby’s question on the number of required signatures on a petition and whether this should increase. Noting that the number using the latest Census would be around 3,600 and stated that they should at least use this number. She added that if
they were to go to ‘eligible,’ then perhaps the number should be closer to 5,000. The discussion turned to participation in the governmental process and what it means to some people. Chappell then stated that unless someone has changed their vote, the Commission will be recommending changing the Charter from ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible.’ He added that at this point they should probably discuss what the number of signatures should be, since this also has a majority of the Commission’s approval for change. Chappell noted that Sullivan has come up with a proposal regarding this. Sullivan asked if they could first discuss why ‘qualified’ should remain in the Charter, in order to make their case for recommending a change to ‘eligible.’ Craig asked Sullivan if he could give the top three reasons why someone would not register to
vote. Sullivan responded that one, the person does not want to serve on jury duty; second, they do not want their name and information to be public record; and third, they do not want to turn up to vote. (Schantz had to leave the meeting at this point.) Shaw stated that to him moving
from ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible,’ and changing the number of signatures does not appear to lessen the awareness that may be created by distributing a petition. In the end, then, only those that are registered to vote will vote on the issue. Kubby asked Shaw if he had a number in mind,
and he spoke to Sullivan’s memo, stating that if they were to go by Sullivan’s proposal, it would only increase by 150 signatures. He noted that this would not be unduly burdensome at all, but
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 4
that he is not sure of an exact number. He also questioned if they shouldn’t do a percentage of 2013’s voter turnout statistics. Chappell noted that if they look at the Census data that Karr provided, it puts them around 3,600, based on a comparison of the city’s population when this provision was adopted, compared to the 2,500 and the current population. He touched on why he believes the 3,600 more closely represents where they should be on this issue. He asked what others think about this number. Sullivan stated that he believes his memo stands, and he also referenced the
ACLU memo, noting that the State only requires 10% of eligible electors and that they should not require more than this. Speaking to this briefly, Dilkes stated that when this was written into the State code, nobody was thinking about initiative and referendum. Kubby stated that she
would like to have two different votes here – one on the number of signatures, and then a second for the ‘eligible’ issue.
Chappell then asked for everyone’s stance at the present time on the number issue. Moyers-Stone stated that at first she was at 5,000, but that the more she hears it does make sense to base the number on some methodology. She did not think the 2,660 was enough of an increase, and that using the Census number is more in line with what she is thinking. Kubby stated that she would like to keep the number at 2,500. Craig responded that she would like to see 4,000. Chappell noted that he is comfortable with 3,600. Atkins stated that he too would be okay with 3,600. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to see it done via a methodology tied to the Census with an escalator as the Census changes. Shaw stated that he is at a number somewhere between 3,600 and 4,000. Members continued to discuss this issue, as they attempted to agree on some type of methodology to use in determining this number.
Chappell noted that he is hearing a majority for 3,600. He asked if there was a motion for this. Shaw moved that the Commission vote whether to increase the number of eligible electors to some number higher than 2,500. Chappell stated that this is not what he meant, and Shaw
asked if he wanted the number stated as exactly 3,600. Craig stated that she would like to revisit the actual math that they are using to reach the 3,600 number. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to get the number tied to the Census. Karr then further explained that on
December 23rd, she verbally reported that if they were to look at the information previously used, from the 1970 Census, and the 2,500 required at that time, and then compared it only to the Census figures – not the voters – the Census population was 46,850 and it was ‘no fewer than
2,500 voters.’ This came out to the percentage of .0533617. If you take this same number consistently through, Karr noted that in 1980 it would have been ‘no fewer than 2,695,’ the 1990 would be ‘no fewer than 3,187,’ the 2000 Census would show ‘no fewer than 3,320,’ and the 2010 population would have reflected ‘no fewer than 3,621.’ Chappell asked Dilkes for some guidance at this point, noting that he would like to have a motion to vote on a particular number that they would then vote on, followed by a motion to change the Charter to allow for ‘eligible’ at this particular number. Kubby noted that the vote needs to reflect ‘if’ they change it from ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible,’ and everyone agreed. Members continued to discuss the issues at hand, with Sullivan asking Chappell and others if they see this as something the Charter Review Commission will need to revisit every 10 years.
Chappell stated that he believes the Commission will need to revisit this in 10 years, if they do make a change, just to see if it is working well. Shaw made the motion that if they make the change to ‘eligible,’ that the number of signatures required be raised to 3,600. Atkins seconded the motion. Atkins asked for some clarification again on how they are arriving at the 3,600 number. Chappell explained how the proposed number was set, and how using that they
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 5
have now arrived at the 3,600 number. Chappell then reiterated the current motion. Vanderhoef asked if she should make a second motion then to tie this number to the Census. Chappell stated that she could do that, and Dilkes added that she could also make a motion to amend the current motion. Vanderhoef reiterated that she would like to see this number automatically bumped with Census, starting at the 3,600 number. Chappell moved to amend the motion to add language tying the number to the Census so that it changes every 10 years. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Shaw then moved to amend original motion, stating that he would add that it be rounded to the nearest hundredth. Chappell and
Vanderhoef accept this friendly amendment. The motion to accept the amendment carried 6-2; Sullivan and Kubby in the negative, and Schantz absent. Next the vote moved to Shaw’s motion with the amendment and friendly amendment on it. Sullivan spoke briefly to
this issue before the vote was taken. A vote was then taken to increase the number of signatures to 3,600, should the ‘eligible’ change take place, tie this to the Census information, and round to the nearest hundredth. Motion carried 5-3; Chappell, Kubby, Sullivan in the negative. Kubby then moved to change ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible’ elector for initiative and referendum. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3; Vanderhoef, Craig, and Chappell in the negative. Chappell noted that in the Commission’s report, they will therefore be recommending to the City Council that the Charter be amended to allow eligible voters, instead of qualified, to sign petitions for initiative and referendum, and the floor will be at no fewer than 3,600 signatures required. There will also be language added so that on a decennial basis when the Census comes in, this number will be adjusted accordingly. The Commission returned to discussion regarding election of Mayor. a. Election of Mayor (continued) Members continued to discuss the mayoral appointment and powers. Kubby spoke to the
various arguments regarding a directly elected mayor, versus having the council make this appointment. She added that she believes the mayor will have more ‘power’ if elected by the voters. The conversation also covered the city manager position and what types of power this
position holds. Chappell then asked each Member where they stand on this issue. Vanderhoef stated that she believes the mayor should be selected by the council and therefore does not desire a change in the Charter at this time. Atkins stated that he also believes it should stay the
same. He does believe that there needs to be some type of transparency, however, built into the process. Craig also agreed that there should be no change, and she also agreed that transparency is an issue. She added that the agenda-setting power should go to the mayor, as well. Sullivan stated that he has struggled with this issue, and that after hearing input from the public, he believes a change is desired here. He agrees with Kubby in that the mayor should be elected by the public. He believes a good compromise would be to elect a ‘weak’ mayor. Moyers-Stone stated that she also believes this process should not change. She believes there is already a compromise with the at-large and district positions. Chappell noted that if his notes are correct, Schantz is also for changing how the mayor is elected. This would then put them at
a 6-3 vote on the matter, with ‘no change’ being the decision. [Further discussion later in the meeting]
The Commission returned to discussion regarding district representation. b. District Representation (continued) Chappell asked Members to comment. Sullivan stated that he would go either one way or the
other – either close down the general election to just district voters or open up the primaries to everyone. Vanderhoef stated that she believes the process works well the way it is currently.
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 6
She added that she might entertain some modification if there was interest by Commission. Craig stated that she would be in favor of no change, as did Shaw. Kubby stated that she would like to see some type of transparency for the Charter that is not too specific and that could function well from the perspective of a council member. She added that she is working on a proposal for this section and would have something for the next meeting. Atkins stated that he does not believe they need to change this section, as did Moyers-Stone. Chappell weighed in then, stating that he is also for no change at this time. He stated that he believes the system they have is a good one. With this information, Chappell noted that there appear to be seven
for no change, one for change, and one for ‘light’ change (Sullivan). Chappell then asked if there was a motion to keep the Charter as it currently is, with regards to
district representation. Vanderhoef moved to keep the Charter as it is currently with district representation. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2; Kubby and Sullivan in the negative, Schantz absent.
The Commission returned to discussion regarding election of Mayor. a. Election of Mayor (continued) Members discussed the powers of the mayor and how this interacts with the city manager position. The setting of the agenda was discussed at some length by Members. Vanderhoef noted that a practice of the council has been that if three council members want an issue put on the agenda, that this is enough to move the issue forward. Sullivan noted that Schantz’s proposal talks about the mayor ‘representing the City in inter-governmental relationships.’ Kubby stated that there are many inter-governmental relationships already that the mayor attends to. Members continued to discuss the topic of selecting council members for commissions, and the selection of members to City boards and commissions by the council.
Chappell asked that they move ahead at this point with a vote on the mayoral issue. Shaw moved to keep the selection of the mayor as it currently is in the Charter. Moyers-Stone seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2; Kubby and Sullivan in the negative, Schantz absent. Chappell asked that they add an agenda item to further discuss Schantz’s proposal on the
mayoral issue, more specifically the powers of the office. [Proposal (Sullivan)] e. Other parts of the Charter as time allows – None REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: Chappell noted that everyone has a copy of the report from 10 years ago. He suggested they follow this same format as they draft their report. He briefly touched on the important sections of the report and how he would like to continue with it. Chappell then asked the group for their consensus on how to move forward with this. Atkins stated that he works best from a draft, so he would appreciate having a draft report. Sullivan agreed that the previous report format works well, and he stated that Chappell has done a good job of taking on this type of task. Others agreed that Chappell should move forward with preparing a draft report for review by the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Martha Hampel addressed the Commission, thanking them for their work. She stated that the entire process has been quite fascinating for her. She noted how opinions have changed over
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 7
the course of the meetings, as Members further discussed issues and also took in public comment for consideration. Speaking to the issue of increasing signatures for initiative and referendum, Hampel stated that she is not in favor of this. Hampel spoke to some research she has done on the issue, sharing with Members the numbers she uncovered in her work. She stated that it appears the number came about from the number of voters, not population, and she questioned changing this to follow the Census numbers. Hampel continued, speaking to some of the past elections and the voter turnout numbers. She spoke to how the proposed change to 3,600 could impact this process, and asked what the Commission plans to do with
the current language referencing “…equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular election,…”. Hampel stated that it appears to her that the original number was based off the number of people who were voting, not
population, and she again quested making the proposed change. Chappell stated that they have not had any proposal to increase the 25% number. He added
that he believes it would be good to have that number be relevant again as it would mean there are more people voting. Hampel spoke to how typically it depends on the issues on the ballot as to how many voters are going to turn out. Kubby then spoke to the original number and how it was arrived at, stating that there are no notes to refer to on the matter. Sullivan thanked Hampel for her input, stating that these are interesting points to consider. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM: Chappell stated that the hope is to have a red-lined version done and ready for discussion at this meeting. The plan is to let the public come and react / respond to the draft, similar to the first forum they held. Karr asked Members when they need this redlined version, and Chappell spoke to timelines for this draft. He stated that he would like to set an extra meeting now, prior to the forum on the 24th, in case they need the time to complete their draft. Members briefly discussed schedules, finally agreeing to add an extra meeting on February 13.
* Harvat Hall – February 24 – 6:30 P.M. * Format, advertising, and televising – televise live TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): February 10
February 13 February 24 (Public Forum) (will meet in morning if needed) March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Vanderhoef absent.
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 27, 2015
Page 9
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 01/13/15 01/27/15 02/10/15 02/13/15 02/24/15 (AM) 02/24/15 (PM) 03/03/15 03/10/15 03/24/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X O/
E
X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X O X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2015 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 01/27/15 – Chappell asked if there were any proposed
changes to the minutes. Kubby stated that on page 4, at the bottom, it says ‘Chappell explained how the initial number was set.’ Kubby stated that she reads this that the original 2,500 was based on the census, which isn’t really quite right. It was instead a methodology that was agreed to. She believes they should acknowledge somewhere in the minutes that methodology. Karr suggested ‘proposal’ instead of ‘initial’ number. Kubby agreed to this wording. Kubby moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. b. Correspondence from: Jo Dickens REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Kubby stated that she contacted Caroline Dieterle regarding an editorial in the Press-Citizen co-authored by Carol deProsse) concerning ‘qualified’ versus ‘elector” signatures on initiative and
referendum petitions; stating she felt it was a disservice to say it was a ‘split vote’ without saying anything further about it and it was self-serving of them to do this. REVIEW CHARTER: 1. Language for Changing Qualified to Eligible for Initiative and Referendum * Proposal from Chappell (X2) – Chappell noted that he wanted to explain two examples that they could use to adjust ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible.’ The first example keeps all the descriptive system that they currently have. Chappell asked if this will be confusing, as it will look like the City Clerk is doing a lot more than she is really doing. He added that the group has not specifically discussed whether they wanted to keep ‘qualified’ for people who sign the initial affidavit, who initiate the change to begin with. Discussion centered on this issue, with Chappell asking if the group believes the
Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 2
‘petitioner’ should be ‘qualified.’ Sullivan stated that he would be supportive of ‘eligible’ but that he believes there is a stronger case to be made that this should be ‘qualified.’ Chappell asked Schantz what his view are on this issue. Schantz stated that he does
not feel strongly either way. Vanderhoef responded that she would be supportive of ‘qualified,’ as did most of the rest of the Commission. Kubby stated that she would say ‘eligible’ for consistency in the process. Vanderhoef moved that it is required of the petitioner in 7.02A to be a ‘qualified’ elector. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2, Kubby and Sullivan in the negative. Chappell then spoke to Section 7.03A and how the 3,600 number was reached, and secondly, how to adjust it. Wording to this effect is: “Signatures of eligible electors shall be no fewer than the number equaling 5.33% of the population of the City of Iowa City as determined by the most recent U.S. Census, rounded to the nearest hundred.” He added that they can also have an example of this in the wording. Kubby stated that she does not believe the Charter is the place for an example, but that the Citizen’s Guide would be a perfect place for this. Chappell asked if the group is okay with leaving the example out, and putting it in the Citizen’s Guide instead. Craig stated that she agrees
with Kubby, that having the example here is an important extra step in explaining the process. She then asked for some clarification on Chappell’s versions, noting that in the first version it says ‘no supplementary petition will be permitted,’ and in the simplified
version it is not addressed. She asked if there is a supplementary petition or not. Members continued to discuss this issue, noting that with the change from ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible,’ the supplementary petition will not be needed. Dilkes noted that the City Clerk will basically be making sure there are the required number of signatures with Iowa City addresses, nothing more, if the change is adopted. The previously required supplemental documentation would no longer be needed. Dilkes further clarified the Clerk’s handling of this process and responded to Member questions regarding how the
change would look. Karr noted that the process will be more front-end, one-on-one, than it is currently. Speaking to timelines, Dilkes pointed Members to Section 7.05B in the simple version. She noted how the time periods have shortened with the proposed
changes put in place. Vanderhoef questioned how much time the Clerk has to do her portion once it’s submitted, and Karr stated that the impression she got was it would be done ASAP, while the person is waiting, if possible. Dilkes stated that she included five
days in the latest draft version, but that she could take this out. The conversation continued on this specific timeframe, and how the clock is ticking once
a petitioner comes to the Clerk’s office. Kubby asked what if someone just leaves their petitions and does not wait, and the Clerk’s office is backlogged. Dilkes noted that the five-day timeframe is not on the front-end of the process. Members continued to discuss this issue, and whether to have the ‘five-day’ time period in here or not. Kubby then spoke to 7.04A in the simplified version. The second to last sentence , she believes, may cause some confusion: ‘If it lacks the required number of signatures, it shall be considered invalid.’ She stated that this may be legally true but that when the public reads this, it may appear that none of the signatures are valid any longer. She
suggested they use ‘insufficient’ or some other word to show that the signatures collected are valid, but that more of them are needed. Dilkes attempted to clarify the use of ‘valid’ in 7.04A. Chappell asked Members which version they prefer, and Sullivan
stated that he prefers the simplified version. He believes that leaving the language of the old process in is not really conducive to helping the public understand.
Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 3
Craig stated that she had some questions about the Objections Committee that is in the simplified version only. Chappell stated that it is called a ‘committee’ but that it is really
in response to the State code saying that you have to have a way to deal with ejections. He further explained how this is covered in the State code and who would serve on this ‘committee,’ should it be needed. Members agreed that the simplified version, minus the example, would be preferable to them. Chappell asked if there was a motion to adopt what has been labeled ‘simplified system’ for the changes to ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible,’ which would specifically be a document in the packet, while changing 7.02A and B back to ‘qualified,’ and removing the example from this section. Atkins moved to adopt the simplified system and noted changes above. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Kubby noted that even though she does disagree with the ‘qualified’ in 7.02, she still agrees with the motion overall. Sullivan stated that he supports the motion due to the work put into it, but that he does not support the 5.33 % issue. 3. Use of word “citizen” in Citizen’s Police Review Board – Chappell stated that
he wanted to skip ahead to the third issue to make sure they cover it. Karr noted that the CPRB does meet this evening. Chappell then spoke to the issue, giving some background on where they are currently with this. Given that the group has agreed to
remove the word ‘citizen’ from the Charter, the question now is whether it makes sense to remove the word ‘citizen’ in this section as well. Chappell noted that this is the one commission actually identified in the Charter. Another name suggested was ‘Community Police Review Board’ in place of ‘Citizen.’ Moyers-Stone asked for some clarification of the history of the CPRB and its name change in the past. Dilkes noted that if the name is changed in the Charter, staff will then have it changed in the ordinance and all other documents, thus changing the official name. Chappell asked if there was a motion and a second to change the name of the existing Citizens Police Review Board to Community
Police Review Board. Sullivan moved to adopt the proposed name change to ‘Community Police Review Board.’ Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Karr stated that she would report this to the CPRB that evening. Kubby
stated that the word ‘community’ is really more open as to who can file a complaint, compared to ‘citizen,’ which is the most restrictive of any of the terms. Kubby asked for further clarification on some of the other sections in this part, such as Section 5.02
Appointment and Removal, and the reference to 30 days’ notice of vacancies. Karr clarified that the 30 days is for the initial appointment, and a shorter time is used for re-advertising.
2. Mayoral duties – Chappell then moved to the mayoral duties topic, noting that this is under 2.06B. Current duties are to be a voting member of the council, the official representative of the City, the presiding officer of the council, and its policy spokesperson. He noted that previously they had discussed adding language about having the ability to set the agenda. As to the agenda issue, Schantz noted that he used wording to the effect of ‘in consultation with the city manager.’ Atkins spoke to the agenda setting process, noting that it is traditionally a responsibility of the mayor and
that this will confirm that. Chappell stated that this is true, that by changing the language of the Charter, they are not changing how the practice is handled. Vanderhoef spoke to how this practice could slow things down, noting examples of how this could happen if
the mayor has to sign off on each agenda. She noted that the informal method they use now works very well, and that the mayor is involved in the process already. She
Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 4
questioned making this a ‘formal’ process. Chappell noted that this is a good point. Kubby stated that the mayor knows they have to be available for this, and that it does not have to be officially ‘signed off’ on, that a phone call, for example, saying that
something needs to be amended on the agenda should be good enough. She believes this outlines who prevails should there be a disagreement about what’s on the agenda. Members continued to discuss the agenda-setting process, with Kubby stating that since they have decided to not change the way the mayor is selected, some of these tussle issues have been reduced. Dilkes then spoke to what she sees as a potential problem should they use the wording, ‘Mayor shall set the agenda for the City Council.’ They currently have a practice where if three members of the council want an item on the agenda, it goes on. If the mayor says, ‘I don’t care. I set the agenda, per the City Charter,’ he has a pretty strong case in his favor. Sullivan asked if they should add language to the Charter about having three council members being able to put something on the agenda. Chappell stated that his concern is mucking up something that already works. He believes if they are going to find language to put in here that it needs to not do this. The current system appears to
be working, and he spoke briefly to how changing this may not be what they are seeking here. Others agreed that the current system does appear to be working and they questioned why they would change it. Chappell spoke to having the wording such that
the mayor has the ability to ‘add items’ to the agenda, but not to take them off – still using the current system for the most part. Vanderhoef spoke to whether this is referring to the formal meeting only, or also to the work session agenda. Kubby noted that it does not specify, so therefore should cover both agendas. Chappell agreed that this would cover both agendas. The language being proposed then is, ‘The mayor may add items to the city council agenda.’ Kubby moved to adopt the proposed change as stated above. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0.
Kubby asked if there was any interest in discussing a ‘term limit’ for the selected mayor. She stated that she is not generally in favor of term limits, but that this was something that had some up earlier in their conversations. Vanderhoef stated that she would
entertain this issue, but there was no further interest. 4. Other parts of the Charter as time allows - None PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF RED-LINE VERSION: Chappell noted that he had one question regarding this version, on page 7, the language on 4.02A. He noted that the language that Karr and Dilkes got from the commission’s conversation
was to keep the first sentence the same, add ‘termination pay shall be as determined by contract,’ and delete the existing second sentence. His notes, on the other hand, show that the sentence would read, ‘A city manager removed by the Council is entitled to receive termination pay as provided by contract.’ He added that they are not materially different, but that he wanted to see what others recall. Dilkes stated that she prefers Chappell’s version as it is clearer and others agreed. Chappell then spoke to whether or not they need to keep their Friday meeting (2/13). He added that they are very close to having the document ready to go for the public forum on the 24th. Kubby stated that she has a proposal regarding transparency in the mayor selection.
Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 5
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: a. Language regarding selection of mayor * Proposal from Kubby She provided three options for Members to review, noting that the idea is to have this process be very transparent. Sullivan stated that he prefers the third selection himself, but that this should have been introduced at one of the earlier forums. He would have liked to have gotten more community input on this issue. Atkins stated that he likes the word transparency, but that it has somewhat of a governmental buzzword feel to it. Members continued to discuss what the concern is here and whether there should be a public process, including input, on what qualities the mayor should have, for example. Chappell gave some examples of what this might look like. Shaw stated that he would like to think about this issue some more and not just dispose of it as not being relevant at this point in the process. Moyers-Stone stated that she appreciates Kubby’s work and optimism, and she spoke to Kubby’s proposed language here. Schantz stated that he agrees there is no in-between point of council selection and direct election.
Chappell noted the late hour of the meeting and their need to wrap things up. He asked how much interest there was from Members to meet on Friday and continue the discussion on
transparency in selection of the mayor. Shaw, Kubby, and Atkins were the only three wanting to have this conversation. Therefore, the meeting of Friday, February 13, 2015, was cancelled. Sullivan moved to preliminarily approve the current red-lined version, with a draft watermark on it. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM (tentatively set): * Harvat Hall – February 24 (6:30 P.M.) TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): February 13 – meeting cancelled February 24 February 24 – 6:30 P.M. Public Forum March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
February 10, 2015
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
February 10, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 01/13/15 01/27/15 02/10/15 02/24/15 (AM) 02/24/15 (PM) 03/03/15 03/10/15 03/24/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X O/
E
X X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X O X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
February 10, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Morning meeting Page 1
MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2015 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins (via phone), Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Mark Schantz Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 02/10/15 – Chappell asked if there were any proposed changes to the minutes. Kubby stated she had spoken only to Caroline Dieterle, and not Carol deProsse, regarding their editorial and asked that page 1 of the minutes be corrected to reflect that. Craig questioned if the second full paragraph on page 2 should read 3,600 signatures and not 2,500. City Atty. Dilkes stated that she used the 2,500 as an example. Vanderhoef suggested the number be deleted and replaced with “required.” Majority agreed with both changes. b. Correspondence from: 1) Margaret and Charles Felling; 2) Martha Hampel
Shaw moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Kubby seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. Chappell noted correspondence from Margaret and Charles Felling and Martha Hampel. Kubby responded to questions regarding the Hampel letter requesting reconsideration of the decision to base the increase in initiative and referendum petition signatures on population growth. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. REVIEW OF RED-LINE VERSION CHARTER: Members then began to review the red-line version of the Charter.
On page 17, Section 7.05 – Action on Petitions, Craig noted that in the second sentence says, “If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure, and fails to adopt a measure which is similar in substance within 60 days.” She asked if this shouldn’t be an ‘or’ instead of an ‘and’ here. Dilkes noted that this wording has been this way for as long as she can remember, and
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Morning meeting Page 2
she questions making such a change. She added that use of the word ‘fails’ makes this an ‘and’
situation. Next Craig asked about page 18, Section 7.07. She suggested they consider changing the title of this section as it is no longer a Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions, but instead it should be ‘Different’ Conditions or something similar. Members discussed this briefly, agreeing that the removal of ‘Stricter’ works instead.
Kubby noted that there was a guest opinion today in the Press-Citizen and that one of the things it referred to was the removal of the first sentence of the Preamble – “That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the responsibility for it.“ She added that she needs to think about this and how it could be incorporated into the newly suggested Preamble. Members started to discuss this, with Vanderhoef asking if they haven’t captured most of this in the first red-line version. Kubby again stated that she would like to think about this suggested change before making a decision.
REVIEW DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: Chappell noted that he truly wants this to be the Commission’s report, which he wants to hear corrections and suggestions and any other comments Members may have. Craig stated that
she thought it was very well written and that Chappell should take pride in his work. Vanderhoef agreed, stating that she thought it well represented what they have been talking about. Sullivan agreed. Craig noted that she only had one thing – that her name was misspelled in the report.
Shaw asked if his middle initial could be added, as there are several Melvin Shaws living in Iowa City. He asked that it be shown as Melvin O. Shaw. Sullivan asked that his middle initial, without the period – B – be added, as well. Kubby suggested that on page 4, under ‘Selection of the Mayor,’ that they remove the word ‘some’ in the fifth line, where it says, ‘…that the City Council spend some time studying this issue. Then on page 5, # 3, Kubby spoke to the last point about if a district member was elected by and representing only a third of the city that that would be weird if they became mayor. She added that if they had gone with true districts, they would have most likely said that the selected mayor had to be an at-large council member – that she would have promoted this. Chappell asked if Kubby is suggesting they delete the sentence here or if she wants to add a
reference here. Discussion continued, with Chappell asking Members if they are comfortable leaving this sentence – the last sentence in paragraph # 3 on page 5. Moyers-Stone stated that she is okay with deleting it, as she believes they captured this in the ‘Selection of the Mayor’ section. Chappell asked Atkins if he is okay with this and he stated he was. Shaw also agreed to this change.
Dilkes reported she sent an email to Chappell, regarding a correction on page 3, second paragraph, eighth line up from the bottom – related to petitions authorized by the City code. She stated that this comes from the State code, and therefore it can be worded such that this is ‘by the State code,’ removing the reference to ‘City.’ Sullivan stated that he really appreciates the issues that they decided not to take up and that
there is clear rationale for why they did this in the report, and believes they are given some voice in the report. The conversation then turned to how the Commission wants these latest changes shown in the next draft version. A majority requested the next draft show the redlined changes.
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Morning meeting Page 3
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM: *Harvat Hall – February 24 (6:30 P.M.) Kubby stated that she does not see this meeting as a back-and-forth, but that some clarifications may need to be made. Karr stated that red-line versions will be available for the
public, as well as the agenda. Sullivan asked the meeting schedule be available agenda, and Karr stated that they can announce the meeting schedule as well. Chappell asked if he should make any further remarks, and Kubby stated that basically they should say that what is available is the latest red-line version and then explain changes made at today’s meeting, and that they are there to hear feedback on this version. They can then make a remark as to the meeting schedule and changes made. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (All meetings are 7:45 AM in the
Helling Conference Room: February 24 – 6:30 P.M. Public Forum March 3 – Chappell noted that they can discuss the red-line version at this meeting and see if there are any final changes after hearing from the public at the February 24 forum. Karr noted that Craig will not be at this meeting. March 10 – Vanderhoef stated that she will not be at this meeting. Karr asked if the group would like to set a different meeting date, and Kubby suggested skipping the 10th and having the March 24 meeting as everyone will be present. After a brief discussion, Members agreed to change the March 10th meeting to March 9th. Chappell stated that at the meeting on March 9 they will plan to vote on both the red-line version and the final report. March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried
8-0, Schantz absent.
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Page 4
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 01/13/15 01/27/15 02/10/15 02/24/15 (AM) 02/24/15 (PM) 03/03/15 03/09/15 03/24/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X O/
E
X X X
O/E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X O/
E
X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X O X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Page 6
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 1
MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION – COMMUNITY FORUM FEBRUARY 24, 2015 – 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL, HARVAT HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers- Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Steve Atkins, Mark Schantz Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
None OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR:
Chappell called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. He welcomed everyone to the Charter Review Commission’s third community forum. Chappell gave some brief opening remarks, noting that the Commission has met in excess of 24 times and he thanked those from the public
who have attended some of these meetings. He noted that at this point the Commission’s recommendations are shown in the red-lined version of the Charter. Chappell noted the ‘Upcoming Meeting Schedule’ portion of the agenda did not include their next meeting will be March 3rd at 7:45 A.M., where the Members will review tonight’s discussion as they continue to wrap things up. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chappell then asked Members to introduce themselves. DISCUSSION OF RED LINED VERSION CHARTER AND OPEN DISCUSSION OF CHARTER:
Chappell asked that speakers state their name for the record and to limit comments to five minutes or less. Karr noted that there is a sign-in sheet at the podium. Tom Carsner, 1627 College Ct. Pl., stated that he began this process with the thought that the biggest problem that the Charter Review Commission can address is the sense of citizens feeling left out of participation in City government. He added that this is very evident when you
look at voting numbers in elections. There is a lack of participation in the system because people do not feel their voice is being heard, or if they do raise their voice, that it doesn’t matter and isn’t being listened to or processed. Carsner stated that he does not believe the red-lined version meets much of this issue. He added that he would advocate for a strong, elected mayor/council form of government. Moving on, Carsner commended the Commission for their choice of reverting back to ‘eligible’ electors being able to sign initiative and referendum
petitions, but at the same time he does not like seeing the required number of signatures raised. He encouraged Members to reconsider this issue. Carsner then addressed the issue of direct district elections. He encouraged Members to consider allowing only the voters in a said district to vote and elect, both in the primary and in the general, three members of the council. He added that he believes the best part of this is that it raises issues that are important to people in
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 2
different areas of the city, directly to the council level, without being taken through the filter of
the city manager’s office or a committee. Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., asked for an explanation of the absence of two of the Commission Members. Chappell responded that those two Members are presently out of state and unable to attend. Dieterle responded that these two Members must have thought it was okay to be out of state at the time of this most important forum. She then spoke to the red-lined
version of the Charter, noting that the current Preamble contains the following: “We the people of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Iowa and the principle of self-determination do hereby adopt this Charter and confer upon it the full Home Rule powers of a Charter City. By this action we adopt the following principles, and it’s point three, the conduct of City business and conformity with due process, equal protection under the laws, and those liberties protected by the Constitution of the United States, the State of Iowa, and local ordinances.” Continuing, Dieterle noted that the text of the red-lined version ignores Chapter 362.4 of the Code of Iowa regarding ‘Petitioning.’ She read further, noting that
nowhere does it say a petition will be checked signature by signature. Dieterle shared a handout of her comments with the Commission; and distributed correspondence from Carol deProsse.
Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., stated that he was at an earlier meeting and he remembers hearing people say, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,’ and he got the impression that people didn’t want to make too many changes to the Charter at that time. He questioned why the Preamble was changed so dramatically from the previous Charter. Chappell stated that he can’t speak for the entire Commission, but that in general the sense was that the changed Preamble did a better job of capturing what the Commission wanted it to capture. He added that he does not think anyone viewed it as having major substantive changes. Chappell continued, noting that the author of the revamped Preamble is not present today. Gussin asked what it was that the previous Preamble did not capture. Kubby stated that basically the conversation began over wanting to remove the word ‘citizen’ from the Preamble so that it spoke to a broader constituency of those living under the Charter and how local government affects all of the community. She asked Gussin if there are specific parts he dislikes, and he responded that he likes the part that says the Charter is for all of the citizens and sharing responsibility, but that he
did not get this sense from the red-lined version. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., addressed Members stating that she also has a problem
with the Preamble. She stated that when you read the old version, it makes sense – things are pretty transparent. However, when she read the new Preamble, she was confused. She believes the Commission needs to make the Preamble clearer, even with the intended changes. Mary Murphy, 890 Park Place, thanked the Members for the time they have spent on the City Charter. She stated that she does not believe that this particular draft goes far enough in reflecting the community’s values. She noted that she did submit comments to the Commission and that her comments were not even discussed by them. She stated that it appeared input was restricted to just four issues and that other topics were not addressed. Murphy added that she found this to be very disappointing. She also commented on the input process and that perhaps it did not go far enough. With all of the technology available, Murphy stated that the
City could access these other avenues for receiving input. She spoke to the issue of anonymous input / telephone calls about not electing the mayor. Murphy then asked that the City Charter draft contain an ethics and a conflicts of interest provision. She stated that she
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 3
believes there is a huge potential in Iowa City for corruption and she brought up the issue of the
City granting TIF’s to LLCs with anonymous members. She questioned the gap analyses that the City performs before granting such TIF’s, stating that these are no longer available online and are being done by a not-for-profit corporation. Murphy spoke further to the use of TIF’s and how she sees an increase in such use, leading to possible corruption where these TIF’s would be used as ‘slush funds.’ A strong ethics or conflicts of interest provision is needed in her opinion.
Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., stated that the red-lined version does include one of the changes she would like to see and she then read from a prepared statement. She noted that at an earlier meeting, one of the Members stated that ‘citizens who are not registered to vote are not eligible to be chosen for jury duty.’ Hampel stated that this is actually incorrect. According to the Iowa Code, Chapter 6.07A, Juries – source lists include voter registration lists, persons with valid driver’s license, and customers of public utilities, such as water. Continuing, Hampel noted that she finds this disturbing that the Commission would rely on assumptions and hearsay
when making decisions as important as changes to the Charter. Another assumption that the Commission has made, according to Hampel, is that people who have had their signature struck from a petition, for initiative and referendum, are not registered to vote. Hampel noted that she
decided to try something for herself – she took the 26 applications that were received for the Charter Review Commission, which were submitted to the City, and she scrutinized the signatures on them, similar to what the City Clerk would do for a petition. Of the nine selected applications, Hampel noted that one did not pass the verification process in that according to the Auditor’s office is not registered to vote. Continuing to read from her prepared statement, Hampel proposed that the Commission take a vote on whether or not this one Member, who is not registered to vote, should remain on the Commission. At this point Hampel asked the Commission if they would be interested in taking such a vote at this time. The Commission responded in the negative. Continuing, Hampel spoke to Census population numbers and the increase in signatures necessary in initiative and referendum petitions. She urged the Commission to drop the ‘qualified elector’ requirement and to not increase the number of required signatures. She also urged them to adopt the petition verification process outlined in the Iowa Code.
Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., again addressed the Commission, speaking first to how the three districts handle their own candidates. She stated that she would like to see a change to this. She stated that she believes the government should be as accessible as possible, to as
many people as possible, so that every citizen of Iowa City feels that they are important and that their voice can be heard. Bob Elliott, 1108 Dover St., spoke to what several of the previous speakers have, noting that he is in disagreement with them regarding the change from ‘qualified’ to ‘eligible’ on initiative and referendum petitions. He spoke to the importance of this type of petition and how it can tie the council’s hands on what they must do. He believes that ‘qualified’ voter is better. He then thanked the Commission for their hard work. Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., returned to the podium, stating that she would like a chance to rebut. Chappell asked if she could wait until other’s have had a chance to speak at least
once and Dieterle responded in the negative. She continued, stating that there is in the Charter a provision that does tie the Council, and that one is to amend the Charter by the citizens. She suggested that perhaps this is what the citizens need to do – amend the Charter themselves.
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 4
Regenia Bailey, 310 Reno St., thanked the Commission for their work. She also expressed her appreciation for the new suggested Preamble, though she stated she does not feel particularly strong about it, that it was more poetic than the original one. Bailey stated that she also appreciates the replacement of the word ‘citizen’ with ‘resident.’ She believes this sends a very important message to the community. As to the district election issue, Bailey stated that she has some strong feelings about this, having been a part of it herself. She shared her views on
why the current system is so important. Evan Fales, 1215 Oakcrest, stated that he is puzzled by Bob Elliott’s comments. He spoke to the point of a petition that it is to either express or discover the will of the people with respect to some matter of concern. He again questioned Elliott’s comments on ‘tying the council’s hands’ on a matter. He stated that the council should welcome the voice of the people with respect to matters that somebody has taken enough trouble to produce a petition and to obtain the necessary signatures. He added that this is all the more reason, in his opinion, to lower the
required number of signatures. Joseph Dobrian, 1015 Second Ave., stated that he believes what Bob Elliott was suggesting is
that there are different types of petitions – those that call for action and those that mandate action. He spoke about a teacher from City High who would tell students that petitions were ‘stupid,’ and he added that some people will sign anything. Dobrian stated that he would think they would want a high bar when it comes to petitions that require action, so that not just anybody can create one and not just any signatures on it will suffice. He added that he mistrusts democracy. He believes that petitions need to be a little bit harder to make actionable, and requiring more signatures goes towards this. Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., approached the podium again. Chappell then asked that everyone be allowed to speak first before others return to the podium for a second time. Shelton Stromquist, 316 Myrtle Ave., stated that he appreciates all the time and effort put into this process by the Commission. He then spoke to his main concern, which is a real crisis in terms of democratic governance, particularly at the city level, due to the low levels of
participation and engagement. Speaking to district representation, Stromquist stated that this does go to the heart of local representative government. He stated that in his opinion piece in the Press-Citizen he talks about some of the history of how cities have come to use at-large
representation. Continuing, Stromquist spoke to representation by district and the possibility of greater access on the part of citizens to the affairs of how they are governed at the local level. With Iowa City’s growing diversity, he noted that it is even more important that all residents feel connected to the political process. Stromquist believes that this would be more likely under district representation. In his view at-large elections privilege elites who have the resources and the citywide visibility to run on a citywide basis. This then skews the electoral process away from greater democratic participation and essentially disfranchises voters and candidates who have fewer resources, and whose primary visibility is local. Stromquist continued to speak to the need for increased participation, with less barriers, and how this would happen faster with district representation. He believes all seven council members should be elected from districts. Stromquist noted that he is not a fan of non-partisan elections either. He believes candidates
should be able to identify their party lines, if they have one. Stromquist wrapped up his comments by stating that he believes they should have a directly-elected mayor and district-
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 5
elected city councilors who actually govern the city. This would mean getting rid of powerful city
manager, who Stromquist believes have too much power. Aleksey Gurtovoy, 4362 E. Court St., spoke to the Commission on the petition signature issue. He stated that there are two petition processes – one to change the Charter and one to change City code. He further explained the differences and how State code plays into these issues. Gurtovoy also spoke to the required number of signatures and how this formula was arrived at.
He then asked why the City is keeping the two different petition processes, and if the State code is too permissive. He stated that some of the Commission members have made comments to the effect that they need to have a representative democracy and that this is why they have voted the way they have. He noted that public support is overwhelmingly for making changes here and yet the Commission has opted to not go that route. He stated that this will end up on the ballot if the Commission decides to not recommend this change. Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., returned to the podium, stating that he believes three issues were
raised by the previous speaker, one being illogical. He addressed these issues, noting that making it easier to petition and put the possibility of change before the council or on the ballot is a safeguard against a powerful city government that ignores the wishes of the people.
Secondly, in regards to registration. Gussin noted that citizens can now register on the day of an election. He stated that it does not make sense then to say someone who is not registered cannot sign a petition. Evan Fales, 1215 Oakcrest, returned stating that he agrees with a previous speaker about distrust of democracy. He added that there is no guarantee that the electorate will make wise decisions, nor that the council will make wise decisions either. He added that he believes they need to make it as easy as possible for people to express their will and that they need to trust the people of Iowa City. Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., spoke again stating that she wanted to clarify that an initiative and referendum petitions does not tie the hands of city council. She added that if the council disagrees with the initiative or referendum they can simply say they don’t like it and then it goes to a vote of the people. Hampel suggested if the commission was going to use
population it should reflect residents over 18 years of age. Also, in regards to the increase in required signatures, Hampel stated that she would like the Commission to comment on why they are using population growth to increase this number. Sullivan responded that the
Commission did consider tying the increase to the number of people voting in city elections over the past 40-plus years, but that there wasn’t any interest in this. Chappell stated that the Commission will have a final report that will contain some of the reasoning behind their recommendations. Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., stated that she believes Hampel’s suggestion is excellent, and that she believes the Commission should share their opinions, as well. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., spoke to the district issue briefly, adding that the more people you have from more backgrounds, the more information that you can gather. She also addressed the directly-elected mayor issue. She asked what large progressive city in the
United States has a city manager form of government, adding that if Iowa City wants to be progressive and move forward, they need to decide which path is going to get them there the best.
Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 6
Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., stated that she just wanted to reiterate that there is a room full of people and that many cannot make the 7:45 A.M. meetings to discuss these issues. Therefore, she believes it is very important to hear feedback from the Commission as to how they arrived at their decisions. Chappell responded, stating that he is not going to try to capture a year long process in a five-minute sound bite. He added that meetings are public and minutes are available, and that the Members have spent the time doing their best in making these
recommendations. He added that the forum is to gather input from the public, and that he appreciates all of the feedback they have heard. Correspondence was received from: Carol deProsse; Pam Michaud; Caroline Dieterle; and Martha Hampel (revised with illustrations). Sullivan moved to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, Atkins and Schantz absent.
Kubby asked if they could have information regarding the ethics and conflict of interest piece that was brought up during tonight’s discussion. She would like to have this for the next meeting, such as what the current policy is. The City Attorney will follow-up.
UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE (All meetings are 7:45 AM in the Helling Conference Room: March 3 March 9 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 P.M. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, Atkins and Schantz absent.
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 01/13/15 01/27/15 02/10/15 02/24/15 (AM) 02/24/15 (PM) 03/03/15 03/09/15 03/24/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X O/E
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X O/
E
X X X
O/E
O/E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X O/
E
X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X O X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission March 3, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 3, 2015 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins (via phone), Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (via phone), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan (arrived 7:55), Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Karrie Craig Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 02/24/15 – Chappell welcomed everyone to the meeting, noting that there are five Members present in person and two (Schantz and Atkins) participating via phone. He then asked if there were any corrections to either set of minutes. Kubby noted that on page 1 of the 2/24/15 morning meeting it states “3,600 signatures and note 2,500” instead of “not 2,500.” Vanderhoef moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, Sullivan and Craig absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Karr noted that Council just received correspondence from Judith Pfohl regarding the Charter
Commission review process and distributed a copy for their information. She stated that although it was addressed to Council, she thought it might be helpful to the Commission as they complete their review.
DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM and REVIEW RED-LINE VERSION CHARTER: Chappell then began a discussion of the public forum recently held. He noted that Members have a copy of Craig’s proposal in their meeting packet regarding initiative and referendum signatures. Chappell asked if any of the Members will be unable to attend the Commission’s meeting scheduled for March 9. Shaw noted that he is scheduled for a hearing in Scott County that day, but that he has asked for a continuation and hopes to be at the meeting. Chappell stated that either they can discuss Craig’s proposal at today’s meeting or they can wait until the 9th. He noted that they need to wrap things up so they may want to go ahead and start the
Charter Review Commission March 3, 2015 Page 2
discussion today. Chappell asked if anyone had anything in particular from the public forum that they would like to discuss.
Chappell then spoke to Dilkes’ memo regarding the conflict of interest issue. He stated that he does not believe this is something they need to add to the Charter, that the State Code adequately covers it. Members discussed the issue, asking if there aren’t regularly scheduled reviews of City policies. Dilkes noted that they are talking about several issues actually and that many of them are not policies but are State Code provisions. She noted that there is no regular review schedule, but that policies are often reviewed as issues arise. She questioned if requiring annual reviews, in this case, would be helpful or not. Karr and Dilkes noted that Council Members are presented information about conflict of interest issues during their orientation process, and that they tend to be very diligent about conflicts, even perceived conflicts. Dilkes further explained how the Council handles these matters and responded to Members’ questions regarding such. Kubby asked if anyone is interested in having some type of generic statement added to the Charter on this issue. Sullivan stated that while he thinks it may be a good idea, that since they are this far along in the process he would prefer that they not add this at this time. He added that he would have liked more feedback and wishes the
issue had been raised sooner. Kubby countered with the thought that this is then saying since they did not hear overwhelming comment on it that they shouldn’t consider it. Sullivan stated that without more input from the public, he would not be in favor of this at this time.
Moyers-Stone said that while she really appreciated Ms. Murphy bringing the issue up, Dilkes’ memo helped to alleviate much of her concern about the issue. Kubby stated that she sees this as important, that it is a vital part of the local government in terms of value. Shaw asked where in the Charter something like this would go. Kubby responded that most likely it would be under Article 2, City Council. She stated that ‘Terms’ might be the best section, by adding a new 2.05. Chappell then asked if there was interest by the Commission to adding a reference to this issue, in the report, as one of those issues that was discussed but not formally recommended. Karr
then clarified when the orientation process occurs, that it is held as a ‘body,’ not on an ‘individual’ basis, and she further explained an orientation is held after each election (every two years). Kubby asked if anyone else would be interested in adding a piece to the Charter on this
issue and no other Members expressed interest. Chappell then moved to the Preamble, noting that they did receive some comments on this
section at the forum. He asked if there was any desire by Members to reconsider the Preamble, specifically the first # 1 – “that the government of Iowa City belongs to all of its citizens and all share the responsibility for it.” Others noted what they took away from the conversation at the
forum regarding this, noting that the new version is more ‘legal’ sounding in nature. Kubby stated that she would be open to going back to the original version, or in replacing the red-lined #1 with the original #1. Sullivan noted that he thought the language could be inserted prior to the second sentence of the intro paragraph – “By this action we assert that the government of Iowa City belongs to all its residents and adopt the following principles:…”, but that he is also receptive to Kubby’s suggestion. He did not find anything wrong with the original Preamble, as Kubby also stated. Shaw noted that his recollection of this is different, that Schantz created this new Preamble, as the group wanted it to reflect a participatory form of government in the City of
Iowa City. He noted that Schantz presented them with three different versions, back in August and September, and that the group spent an adequate amount of time on it. He is not for gutting the Preamble as it is currently written, as they had a particular reason for making such
changes to begin with. However, Shaw stated that he is not opposed to adding the former #1, but that he thinks the ‘resident participation on an inclusive basis and democratic self
Charter Review Commission March 3, 2015 Page 3
government is really at the heart of why they spent a fair amount of time discussing it. He believes it would be a disappointment at this point in the process to just get rid of it.
Sullivan agreed, stating that he believes this to be a good defense for the new Preamble. Chappell asked if anyone truly wants to go back to the original version, and Kubby stated that she believes the original has a more ‘grassroots flavor’ to it. She added that she is not opposed to the new version, that she supported it to begin with. Chappell then asked who, besides Kubby, wants to go back as opposed to making changes to the new Preamble. No one responded. He then asked if Members are interested in working on the red-lined Preamble, perhaps using Sullivan’s suggestion. Chappell suggested: ‘We the people of Iowa City...State of Iowa…the principle of self-determination, acknowledge that the government of Iowa City belongs to all of its residents, and all share the responsibility for it, and do hereby adopt this Charter and confer upon…’ Members discussed Chappell’s suggestions, agreeing that ‘affirm’ sounds better. Dilkes suggested ‘proclaim’ might work in this instance. After some discussion, Members agreed to the use of ‘proclaim,’ and inserting it between ‘hereby’ and ‘adopt’ – “ do hereby proclaim that the government of Iowa City belongs to all of its residents, and all share the responsibility for it, and do hereby adopt…” Dilkes suggested that ‘proclaim’ go at the very
beginning - …, proclaim…and do hereby adopt.’ After continued discussion, Members agreed to this change – “We the people of the City of Iowa City pursuant to the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Iowa, and the principle of self-determination, proclaim that the
government of Iowa City belongs to all of its residents and all share the responsibility for it. We
hereby adopt this Charter and confer upon it the full Home Rule powers of a Charter City….” Schantz explained why the change was made here to begin with, questioning in what sense the government belongs to its citizens. He added that it is about participation, not ownership. Sullivan moved to accept the wording “We the people of the City of Iowa City pursuant to the Constitution and Statutes
of the State of Iowa, and the principle of self-determination, proclaim that the government of Iowa City belongs to all of its residents and all share the
responsibility for it. We hereby adopt this Charter and confer upon it the full
Home Rule powers of a Charter City….” for the Preamble as discussed. Kubby seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, Schantz in the negative and Craig absent. Next the issue of ‘true districts’ was discussed. Kubby stated she believes true districts will
increase the diversity of candidates and will change some of the political strategies of a race. She clarified her belief having three ‘true districts’ and a majority (four) of at-large will give more diversity to the candidate pool. Members began to discuss this proposal, asking Kubby to
further explain her reasoning behind these ideas. Sullivan stated that he agrees it would change elections and would most likely bring a larger candidate pool. Chappell noted that they did get some feedback at the forum on this issue, but that most of what they heard was nothing new. He personally was not swayed by any of the arguments given. Chappell continued to explain why he is not necessarily in favor of having ‘true districts,’ stating that he does not see the need for this at this time. Kubby again shared her reasoning behind wanting to make a change here, noting that it may take two or three cycles before change is seen but that she believes it can. Shaw spoke to how this type of arrangement may become a self-fulfilling
prophecy. The discussion continued, with Sullivan stating that he believes they would see districts where a
group of people inside that district may be able to sway a district race, where they would not be able to do this with a citywide race. He added that he does believe that in a district set-up,
Charter Review Commission March 3, 2015 Page 4
people feel that their vote matters more and that it can give residents in that district more buy-in. Shaw stated that though there is some merit to what Sullivan is saying, he questioned their timeframe in changing course at this time. He spoke to how the Charter is currently worded
“The Council shall divide the City into three council districts of substantially equal population…” and questioned if they have time to do this if true districts were considered. Kubby stated that she had previously suggested language of what would change, and that the only other thing that would need to change is that the mayoral selection would need to be from the at-large candidates versus a district. Vanderhoef spoke to this issue, stating that she cannot recall many, if any, issues that didn’t affect the entire city, versus just a district. Sullivan stated that this is probably because they have been electing at-large. Vanderhoef responded that she does not necessarily agree with this. She spoke to the strength of the neighborhood associations in each part of the city and how these collectively bring issues of importance to the Council’s attention. Sullivan stated that he does not believe there is a perception that the neighborhood associations are actually representative of their communities. He added that he does not even know who his neighborhood representative is. He stated that the council, on the other hand, is perceived as having a lot of power over the way the City government works.
Kubby then spoke to the graph that they were given by Martha Hampel, speaking about the numbers when it comes to how many people actually vote. She stated that if the goal is increased participation perhaps they should be open to changing their structure of government,
in order to see if this is the issue. Kubby added that when the next Charter Review Commission convenes in 10 years, they can review this voter participation trend and see if there are changes. Shaw stated that what appears to be implicit in Kubby’s proposal is that if there were a diverse number of candidates, then voter participation would increase. He questioned if voter participation may be reflective of the issues, or of someone’s inclination to vote, or even other factors altogether. Kubby again stated that if they make no changes, they can expect no changes, and that she believes the change may be a good thing. Members continued to discuss this issue, with the majority believing that the current set-up of four at-large and three
district seats is still best. Chappell asked Atkins and Schantz if they had anything to add to the discussion. Schantz responded that he believes it’s really too late in the process for them to start making changes here, first of all. He stated that he has not been swayed thus far, but that
obtaining more data on voter participation would be helpful. Schantz stated that he would most likely not support this. Atkins asked what was proposed in the last red-line version, and it was noted that no change was suggested for this. He asked for some clarification on what is being
proposed now. Atkins stated that he really sees no need for change at this time, that the current system is good. Kubby moved to change to true districts, using her proposed language, and also that the mayor be selected from amongst the at-large candidates. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-6; Kubby and Sullivan in the positive, Craig absent. Chappell asked the Commission how they would like to proceed from here. Karr asked Atkins and Schantz if they would be participating electronically in the March 9th meeting. Both stated that they would be participating electronically again. Shaw stated that if he is unable to attend in person, he will definitely participate electronically for as long as he is able. Members then spoke to Craig’s proposal, with Chappell stating that he is not comfortable with it. He stated that the number has been the same, first of all, for 40 years, but that he agrees it should be higher, especially if increasing the number of people who can participate in the process. He added that he knows of no other city that allows just ‘eligible’ residents to sign such petitions. The 3,600 being proposed was, in his opinion, a compromise between those wanting to lower the number and those wanting to raise the number from the original 2,500. Chappell noted that he would
Charter Review Commission March 3, 2015 Page 5
not put a percentage amount in the Charter language that having just the required number of signatures works here. He asked how others feel about this issue. Kubby stated that she would support a motion to have it be a number and to not have it ratcheted up based on population.
Sullivan stated that they need to remember that the Census takes place each decade, and the Charter Review Commission reconvenes each decade, and if changes are needed at that time due to population changes, the next Commission can address this. Shaw stated that he is leaning towards increasing this number to 3,600 and he explained the reasoning behind his decision. He added that he would encourage everyone to be more participatory in elections, but that he does not believe that increasing this number to 3,600 would be that much more difficult. In response to questions, Dilkes stated she will address in a memo, State Code Section 362.4, stating that initiative and referendum is an addressed as part of the City’s home rule authority and is not part of state law, as had been discussed on previous occasions. Shaw stated that public perception is that this number was just ‘grabbed out of a hat,’ with no thoughtful debate given. Kubby asked if Shaw is open to having it be just the flat 3,600 without the formula, and he agreed he would be. Moyers-Stone stated that she had nothing to add, and Chappell asked both Atkins and Schantz if they did. Schantz stated that his position has been that they basically want to increase participation. He added that he would be agreeable to the 3,600 as
he sees it tied to the ‘qualified’ versus ‘eligible’ issue. Members continued to debate the issue of whether to make a change from the red-lined version
and have just the 3,600 number without the formula. Moyers-Stone stated that the advantage of having a flat number would be that people would know exactly what the required number of signatures is, versus having to know what a certain percentage of the city’s population is at the time they begin a petition. Vanderhoef stated that as long as this Commission has in their minutes how they arrived at this number, the next Commission can use that rationale in their debate. Chappell stated that he does not personally want to leave the impression that there was any great science behind how they arrived at this number. He added that it was a compromise arrived at after a debate where some wanted to lower the number, some wanted a
much higher number, and some wanted to change at all. The 3,600 number was one that five Members could agree to. Sullivan moved to set the number of required signatures for initiative and referendum at 3,600, and strip the language connecting that number to the U.S. Census, Section 7.03A. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Craig absent. Sullivan added that he would support a lower number, but that he made the motion in the interest of compromise. Vanderhoef suggested a note in the summary report that this
number be reviewed at each 10-year review. Chappell stated that he will make the changes from today’s discussions to both the report and to the red-lined version. REVIEW DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: Martha Hampel addressed the commission, stating that she originally had a lot to say about the increased number of signatures but that she would withhold her comments as she doubts it would change anything. She added that she does not want to see this number increase. Hampel stated that what she is more concerned about is that in contacting the Auditor’s office she was told that Dee Vanderhoef is not even a registered voter. Karr noted that she is, under the name of Karen. Vanderhoef added that her legal name is Karen. Hampel stated that she was surprised to hear this, and questioned Vanderhoef’s use of ‘Dee’ in official types of
Charter Review Commission March 3, 2015 Page 6
situations. After a brief discussion about Vanderhoef’s appointment on the Commission, Kubby added that the Council appoints members to the Commission, that they do not appoint themselves in this situation. Hampel stated that the reason this was even an issue was that
there were Members of the Commission who were ‘judging and being very critical’ of those not registered to vote. Caroline Dieterle stated that she was surprised to hear Kubby say the Council can appoint people to this Commission whether they’re registered to vote or not. Kubby stated that that is what she said, but her understanding is that appointments are not predicated on registration status. Dieterle stated that if this is true, the very body that is overseeing this entire process and speaking to the validity of signatures is being brought forward by a body that does not necessarily have to be registered to vote itself. She added that she finds this absurd and that it is really quite ‘dumb.’ Shaw stated that this is not true. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): March 9 – Chappell stated the Commission would vote on red-lined version; and vote on
final report. Chappell asked Members to get any last-minute changes in as soon as possible so they can be considered at this meeting. Schantz stated that in regards to the Commission’s final report, he would like to suggest under ‘selection of the mayor’
that the language from the guide be used, that it is an issue of increasing the ability of the mayor to lead. The most important idea behind election of the mayor, according to Schantz, would be to improve the ability of the mayor to be a leader, and he asked that
language to this effect be added. March 24 (if needed) (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Shaw moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 8-0, Craig absent.
Charter Review Commission
March 3, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
March 3, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 01/13/15 01/27/15 02/10/15 02/24/15 (AM) 02/24/15 (PM) 03/03/15 03/09/15 03/24/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X O/E X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X O/E
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X O/E X X X O/E O/E X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X O/E X X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X O X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
March 3, 2015
Page 9
Charter Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION (approved electronically) MARCH 9, 2015 – 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins (via phone), Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers-Stone, Adam Sullivan (via phone), Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
Accept recommendations contained in final report submitted March 9th and contained in City Council Information Packet of March 12. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:50 A.M. Chappell noted that they have
been unable to contact Schantz and therefore he will not be participating electronically. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 03/03/15 – Chappell asked if there were any changes. Kubby stated that on page 4, second paragraph where there is a motion, it states that ‘Kubby moved to change to two districts,’ and it should state ‘true districts’ here. Kubby moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Chappell noted that Members received a memo from Dilkes in their meeting packet regarding Initiative and Referendum Petition Requirements / Iowa Code Section 362.4. DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON RED-LINE VERSION CHARTER: Chappell asked if everyone had had a chance to review the latest changes to the Charter
document. Kubby asked if they had ever heard back from the CPRB on the name change issue. Karr and Chappell stated that they did hear back. Chappell added that they did not receive an official report. Karr reported that she had attended the CPRB’s last meeting and they unanimously voted to accept the recommended name change to ‘Community Police Review Board.’ Kubby noted that on page 14, under 7.03, that there appears to be a missing period ‘.’ after 3,600. Chappell stated that it is now after the deleted ‘qualified electors.’ Chappell asked if Atkins or Sullivan had anything to add. Hearing none, Chappell asked for a motion. Sullivan asked if Dilkes or Karr could review what the Council’s next steps are. Dilkes stated that this
Charter Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 2
will be on the April 7 work session agenda, and that the Council then has two options – to adopt the changes by ordinance or to put them on the ballot for the public to decide. Sullivan asked which ballot is being referred to, and Dilkes clarified that it would be this fall’s ballot, should the
Council decide to proceed in that manner. Kubby stated that she believes the red-lined version really reflects the majority of their discussions, and for the changes they are making, she agrees with everything but the increase to 3,600. She would prefer to be at 2,500. She also stated that she believes they missed some opportunities to promote change. She believes if they don’t make fundamental changes, they won’t fundamentally change. However, Kubby stated that she is a bit disappointed in this as it would be good for the community. Vanderhoef stated that she was disappointed that they did not have unanimous decisions on their work, but that she understands it was the best that they could come up with together. She believes that more change at this point would be a bit too much and she would have been in favor of keeping the Charter as it was. Chappell added that he understands that the decisions they have reached have been a product of compromise. He believes they have worked together well to compromise and come up with what they have. Chappell added that he has thoroughly enjoyed the process they have gone through, and he thanked everyone for their hard work in this effort. Sullivan added that he also is not 100% happy with the recommendations, but that he will
support the red-lined version. He also encouraged everyone to participate in these processes and to have more robust conversations next time around. Chappell noted that he will attend the meeting on April 7th, as Chair of the Commission, noting that any comments he makes to
Council will be in support of the report and the draft, and not in relation to any of his personal viewpoints. Karr noted that the April 7 work session is an open meeting and she encouraged other Members to attend as well. Shaw added that he also sees what they have produced as a
compromise, but that one thing clear to him is the work that needs to be done with voter participation. He stated that while the desires of some may not have been reached in these changes, there is still work that the community can do to encourage voter participation. This can then encourage changes. Shaw moved to approve the red-lined version and recommend those changes in the Charter to the City Council. Atkins seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: Chappell stated that he found something on page 3, the first full paragraph. He suggested they change the sentence that starts with “That ratio …..” to just say, ‘That ratio 5.33% was then
applied to the current Iowa City population as determined by the latest U.S. decennial Census. This proposed change appears in Section 7.03A.’ and remove two sentences “The actual number does not appear….” and The methodology is, …” from the report. Members discussed
the sentences in question here, noting that this is how they came up with the 2,500 number. Chappell stated that he struggled with this when he wrote the report initially, because this is how the number was reached. The number itself was a product of compromise. Others stated that
perhaps they should leave this in the report so that the next Charter Review Commission understands how the number was arrived at. Chappell suggested the sentence ‘That number was reached by taking the ratio of required….’ change to read, ‘That number, though a product of compromise, was reached by taking…”. Dilkes suggested changing the word ‘reached,’ to ‘was supported by, or ‘was confirmed by’ instead. Kubby stated that she does like having the word ‘compromise’ in here, as it truly was a compromise among the group. Members continued to discuss the compromise issue, with Dilkes suggesting, ‘The number was reached by compromise, as well as by examining the…’ as her recollection was that it was a ‘compromised number.’ Additional support for the number was then found in the calculations that Karr provided. Kubby suggested, ‘The number was reached by compromise, supported by taking the
Charter Review Commission March 9, 2015 Page 3
ratio of the required number of signatures…’. Dilkes suggested adding ‘and, after ‘compromise.’ Members agreed to the above discussed changed. Kubby moved to adopt the report as amended. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): March 24 (not needed) – Chappell stated that it appears they do not need this meeting. He added that he will be hosting a social gathering, after April 1, and more information will follow. Kubby asked if they could receive an email regarding the April 7 meeting and what can be expected after this time. Karr will do this and will also be sending out a draft of the minutes so that they can be electronically approved, and presented to Council along with the Commission’s report. Vanderhoef thanked the City Clerk and City Attorney for their work during the Commission’s tenure. ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent.
Charter Review Commission
March 9, 2015
Page 4
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08/14 05/13/14 05/27/14 06/10/14 06/24/14 07/22/14 08/12/14 08/26/14 09/09/14 09/23/14 09/30/24 10/14/14 10/28/14 11/10/14 11/25/14 0BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X O/
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X O/
E
X O/
E
X X
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X X X O/
E
X X X X X O/
E
X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
March 9, 2015
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/09/14 12/23/14 01/06/15 01/07/15 01/13/15 01/27/15 02/10/15 02/24/15 (AM) 02/24/15 (PM) 03/03/15 03/09/15 1BSteve
Atkins
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X O/E X X
Andy
Chappell
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Karrie
Craig
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X O/
E
X
Karen
Kubby
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Mark
Schantz
4/1/15 X X X O/
E
X X X
O/E
O/E X O/
E
Melvin
Shaw
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Anna
Moyers
Stone
4/1/15 X X X X O/
E
X X X X X X
Adam
Sullivan
4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X
Dee
Vanderhoef
4/1/15 X X X X O X X X X X X
Key:
X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time