Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-2004 Charter Review CommissionCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JuIV 29, 2004 PACKET CR1 Agenda CR2 Minutes of June 17 CR3 Memo from Chair Sueppel re issues CR4 Home Rule Charters from Clinton, Fort Dodge, and Marion CR5 State of Iowa Redistricting form CR6 Voting Precinct Maps (1975 and 2003) CR7 Letter from Caroline Dieterie CR8 Copy of Citizen Input Poster August 11, 2004 PACKET CR9 Agenda CR10 Minutes of July 29 CR11 Memo from City Attorney re Absence CR12 Memo from City Attorney re Article III (Nomination, Primary & Regular Election) CR13 Memo from City Clerk re Nomination signature requirements CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 7:30 -9:00 AM 1. Approve Minutes 2. Public Comment 3. Review Charter 4. Future Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:30 AM) August 26 September 8 September 29 October 13 October 27 5. Old Business 6. Adjournment (9:00 AM) I CR9 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.1cgov.org � r CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (3 19) 356 -S 009 FAX www.lcgov.org `* REVISED CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 7:30 -9:00 AM 1. Approve Minutes 2. Public Comment Receive correspondence from Jim & Dianne Brenneman 3. Review Charter 4. Future Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:30 AM) August 26 September 8 September 29 October 13 October 27 5. Old Business 6. Adjournment (9:00 AM) Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: Jim and Dianne Brenneman [djbrenn @mcleodusa.net] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 7:37 AM To: citycharter @iowa- city.org Subject: Charter Review Input I believe it would be a step forward to have the City Manager stand for a retention vote every four years. Councilors who usually have other full time jobs delegate a tremendous amount of authority to the City Manager. The City Manager is also the "gatekeeper" for much of the information that flows to the Council, thereby setting the agenda for many of the items discussed at the council level. Such an important position in City government should, I believe have to be accountable to the citizens in some way. A periodic retention vote would do just that. Thank you for your consideration. James L Brenneman 1728 Louis Place Iowa City 52245 319 - 351 -7172 8/9/2004 MINUTES DRAFT as- - 4 CR10 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2004 — 7:30 AM HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Nate Green, Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki Lensing, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; and Kevin Werner Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM. APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2004 Chairperson Sueppel asked if anyone had any comments on the minutes. Davidsen asked for a clarification, under "Call to Order ", the second paragraph, last sentence: "She said the initial goal was to keep the City Manager more in tune with what was happening, and to keep Iowa City represented by the City as a whole." Davidsen suggested: "...and to keep the Iowa City Council representative of the City as a whole." Discussion ensued about the wording, with Davidsen submitting the change in wording. Novick asked that the minutes contain a little bit more detail, mainly for future reference, so that future Councils will see a clearer picture of what took place in the Review. MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the minutes of the June 17, 2004, meeting as amended; Rowat seconded. Minutes were accepted with amendments. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairperson Sueppel stated that he would like to have the public input moved up before the "Review" starts, so they can keep their discussions going until the meeting ends. He asked if members had reviewed the letter from Caroline Dieterle, which suggests that the Commission review the method of appointment of the Chief of Police. She would like this to be done by the Council. She is asking the Commission to keep this in mind when they review the appropriate section of the Charter. REVIEW CHARTER Article III, Nomination, Primary Election and Regular Election. Sueppel asked if anyone had any comments on Section 3.01. Nomination. Kubby asked if there was a legal reason why sections A and B, under Nomination, are the same wording, except for the at -large and districts. Karr gave an explanation of how a district seat is every four years, an at -large seat is two years, and therefore this section was most likely separated in order to clarify that difference. Discussion was started on voting practices, and how people tend to vote, or not vote, in the various districts. Chappell said he doesn't see a problem with this section. Kubby asked if Karr could provide the Commission with some numbers concerning the signatures on petitions. Sueppel asked if there was a big difference between the number of people who cast a vote for a specific district, versus voting for an at -large seat. Karr said that yes, this is very common, with many times being a hundred signatures difference. Sueppel asked about a "bullet vote ", and how does the City count these votes. Karr stated it would be classified as at- large, and she explained how a "bullet vote" plays into the four -year and two -year seats. Kubby noted that it would be interesting to survey people about their personal voting history, and see why people vote in the at- large, but not the district. Discussion turned to the system of voting and the lack of information for voters. Sueppel asked if there has ever been a time Charter Review Commission July 29, 2004 Page 2 when only one person was on the ballot, instead of two. Karr responded that she could not think of a time when this has happened, but that often there is no primary election. Rowat asked about the "10" number and how this creates the need for a primary. He asked if perhaps this number was too low, and by raising it, it would cut costs for primary elections when they may not be necessary. Novick stated that this could be a State law, and discussion continued on this. Sueppel asked Dilkes to get a clarification on this issue, and whether it is mandated by State law. Kubby stated that on Section A, wording would read: "...but not less than the ten person..." Green said he is interested in the background of the" 10 person' rule also. Section 3.02 Primary Election - Chappell asked about Section B, the last part that states: "...unless the Council, by ordinance, chooses to have a rum -off election." He asked what the rationale was behind this, and wondered if it made sense to let the current Council, especially right before an election, pass an ordinance creating a run -off. He stated that conceptually this didn't make sense. Sueppel stated that this was a good point to make, and he then turned the discussion to the City's concept of districts. Kubby stated that it's what they do with this concept, as to whether or not it will create a problem. Chappell noted that if changes were made to the district concept, as some have previously shown an interest in doing, that this would then create a problem. Kubby stated that other cities are using other voting methods, whereby they can avoid the expense of a primary, and she is doing some review of these. Sueppel asked if these others cities are in Iowa or not, and stated that she should check with Dilkes on this as much of what is done in Iowa City's voting process is mandated by the State of Iowa. Novick then asked about the latest district map, and wonders if they shouldn't consider having four districts, instead of three. She stated that the comparison between the previous map, and this most recent one, shows a big difference, and she feels the districts are no longer as contiguous as they were. Discussion continued around this issue, with the word "compact" being used in place of "contiguous ". Kubby stated that in reviewing some other city charters, she noted the difference in how they deal with the at -large seats. Rowat asked Novick for clarification on her suggestion, and if she is suggesting they go from a three- district to a four, or expanding to a nine. She was referring to a four and three, with seven people still on the Council, but with the nomination process and district lines changing. Section 3.03 Regular City Election — Sueppel started off the discussion by asking if in Iowa City there can be a "write -in" vote. Karr responded that the ballots have space for write -ins, and they've had some in the past. Green asked if language should be added to the Charter to reflect this. Sueppel gave the following scenario: District A has a primary, and A and B are elected to be on the general ballot. The rest of the City could reject both candidates from District A, and have a write -in, during this general election. Karr noted that this is correct. Kubby noted that other communities, outside of Iowa, have a line stating "None of the Above ". She may look into this further, to see what outcomes have shown. Sueppel asked if there was enough interest from the Commission members to have Kubby look into these issues further, and several members stated their interest. Article IV — City Manager, Section 4.01 Appointment; Qualifications — the discussion turned to the next Article. There were no comments or suggestions on 4.01. Charter Review Commission July 29, 2004 Page 3 Section 4.02 Accountability; Removal, Chappell asked about the phrase "...holds office at its pleasure." He asked if the City Manager has a contract, which gives him some rights, but that he is an "at will" employee. Dilkes gave a brief explanation of the City Manager's contract, and subsequent benefits. Kubby asked if there was anything in this contract that required a super - majority vote of the Council. Sueppel stated that the approval of the contract is most likely by resolution, Sueppel asked what the words "...or until a City Manager is appointed." Discussion ensued on this, under Section B, with various members giving their view. Novick suggested they remove the word "or ....... to mead "at the pleasure of the City Council until a City Manager is appointed." Green stated that the language as it is now gives the Council the option to either appoint a City Manager right away, or to have the option to use an interim manager. Sueppel stated that he doesn't think the City has that option, that they must appoint someone in this position. Dilkes explained the policies the City follows, and how the City Manager does a memo before an absence, and states who will be in charge during his absence. Karr stated that the City Manager does have a flow chart showing the internal structure of who would make decisions in his absence. The discussion then turned to how a long -term situation would be handled. Novick suggested that the wording be changed from "slhall" to "may", giving the City Council the right to override the City Manager's choice. Sueppel noted that to date there have been no problems in this area; and he said that if someone has an actual case to share, it would be helpful. Section 4.04 Duties of City Manager. Chappell asked about A.(2) in this section, and whether they should add, after "...subject to State law ", the phrase, "...and policies adopted by Council." He further asked if the Council has adopted things like the City Handbook, etc. Dilkes stated that the Council adopts the pay plans every year, reclassification of employees, and items of that nature. Chappell stated that he brings up this addition in order to give a clearer picture. Sueppel stated that he believes this goes along with the next subsections, (3) and (4). Kubby stated that (1) covers this, but perhaps it should say "laws and policies" instead of just "laws." Sueppel gave some background on the Association of City Managers, and the ethics they must follow. Discussion turned to the history of having a City Manager, and the role of the City Council in this system. Dilkes noted that she worries about the Commission changing language in this area, as it can raise questions about whether Council can pass "policies" about those matters reserved by Charter to the City Manager. The process of changing policies was then discussed, with Karr giving some background information on the process that takes place within the City. Sueppel gave background on some of the language in the Charter, stating that it comes directly from the State code. Dilkes agreed, and added that if Council action is required the City Manager only has the authority granted him by the Council. Sueppel then asked about the wording, "...including the determination and compensation of all City employees." He asked about the adoption process, and Karr explained how the resolution process, which covered pay plans, was handled. Karr then explained the administrative ranges that are part of the pay plan. Novick then asked about (3), and if there would be an advantage to adding "appoint or employ well qualified persons to occupy positions... ". Sueppel stated it would be up to the group if they wanted to add this wording. Sueppel then asked if the City has an Charter Review Commission July 29, 2004 Page 4 inventory of its personal property. Karr stated that the City is reassessing and reassigning duties in the Accounting Department to accommodate this. Karr stated that by law now they are required to follow a "GASB" accounting method; and Chappell gave further explanation of this specific method. Green stated he would like to suggest a language change to A.(5), where it states: "Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the city, make... ". Instead of "make ", he is suggesting they say "approve" or "authorize" instead. Sueppel noted that all throughout the Charter, the same language is used. Discussion continued on how the wording is done throughout this section, and if changing the wording would make a difference. Sueppel stated he had no problem with taking out the word "make" and putting in "supervise all" instead. Sueppel asked that members bring any specific wording changes to the next meeting, which will be August 11`x'. Dilkes informed the Commission that she will not be at the next meeting, but she will send a representative from her office, and will provide answers to the questions that the Commission posed today. Dilkes stated that she did not believe a change in 2.11(A) was necessary. She said that she can give an opinion on (A), and asked if the Commission wants an opinion on 2.11(B) also. Green stated he would like more discussion on these issues. Karr asked if there was a motion to accept correspondence. MOTION: Kubby moved, and Davidson seconded, to accept correspondence from Caroline Dieterle. All in favor; motion carried. Kubby then suggested that the meetings be scheduled until 9:00 AM as she feels the hour isn't long enough. Members were in agreement. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kubby moved for adjournment at 8:53 AM; seconded by Davidsen. All in favor; motion carried. r CITY OF IOWA CITY -'� MEMORANDUM CR11 Date: August 3, 2004 To: Charter Review Commission From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Absence As I noted at your last meeting, I will be out of the office from August 9 through August 20, and unable to attend your meeting on August 11. Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek will attend in my absence. Although it appears you may not get to Article VII (Initiative and Referendum), I request that detailed discussion of that article await my return, since I personally have addressed the questions that have arisen during the recent initiatives and have identified both procedural and substantive issues that need to be addressed. cc: Marian Karr Sue Dulek eleanor /memlarkleTdo r CITY OF IOWA CITY M E M 0 RAN D u M CR12 Date: August 4, 2004 To: Charter Review Commission From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Questions Re: Article III (Nomination, Primary Election and Regular Election) At your meeting on June 29, 2004, you asked the following questions: Question: Is the number of eligible electors who must sign a nomination petition set by State Code? Answer: Yes. Chapter 376 of the Iowa Code governs city elections. Section 376.4 provides that the nomination petition must be signed by eligible electors equal in number to at least 2% of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but not less than 10 persons. I note in reviewing Section 376.4 that the time frame for filing a nomination petition in a city which may be required to hold a primary election is not more than 85 days and not less than 68 days before the date of the regular city election. Therefore, the timelines in Subsections A and B of Section 3.01 of the Charter are no longer consistent with_the state law. I would recommend that the language be changed to state that the petition must be filed within the time required by state law. 2. Question: What happens in the case of a tie vote? Answer: Pursuant to Section 50.44 of the state code, the election is determined by lot (the name of each candidate is written on a separate piece of paper and placed in a receptacle and publicly drawn). 3. Question: Can there be write -in votes in city elections? Answer: Section 376.11 of the Iowa Code provides that "[w]rite -in votes are permitted to be cast in all elections for city offices" and sets forth the required procedures if a person is elected by write -in vote. 4. Question: Is either a primary or a runoff election required if the number of candidates is more than two times the number of seats available? Answer: Section 376.6 of the Iowa Code provides that a primary election must be held for offices for which the number of individuals for whom valid petitions are filed is more than twice the number of positions to be filled, with two exceptions. First, the Council may, by ordinance, choose to have a runoff election in lieu of a primary election. Second, the Council may, by ordinance, choose to have nominations made in the manner provided by Chapter 44 or 45, in which case neither a primary election nor a runoff election is required. Chapter 44 addresses nominations by non -party political organizations. Chapter 45 provides for nomination by petition and requires that in cities having a population of 3,500 or greater not less than 25 eligible electors must sign the nomination petition. Section 376.8(3) of the Code states that if such a nomination August 4, 2004 Page 2 process is chosen, the candidates who receive the greatest number of votes for each office on the ballot are elected, to the extent necessary to fill the positions open. The State has legislated extensively regarding the method in which elections are conducted. Chapter 376 of the Code, entitled "City Elections ", provides that "the County Commissioner of elections shall publish notice of any City election and conduct the election pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 39 to 53, except as otherwise specifically provided in Chapters 362 to 392." Section 49.1 of the State Code, which deals with the method of conducting elections, provides that the provisions of the chapter apply to all elections except where a statute authorizing a special election provides otherwise. For example, Section 49.31 of the Code addresses the arrangement of the names on the ballot, providing that at the end of the list of candidates one or more blank lines are to be printed to allow for write -ins. Any proposed charter provision regarding the method of conducting a city election would have to be consistent with the myriad of State Code provisions. cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney elea norlmenVaftlelll.do CITY O F IOWA CITY 08 11 -04 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 6, 2004 TO: Charter Review Commission FROM: Marian Karr, City Clerk RE: Nomination signature requirements ' 1991 election 2 1993 election 3 1995 election 4 1997 election 5 1999 election 6 2001 election DISTRICT AT LARGE Election Year Voter Turnout (District Seat ) Signature Required Voter Turnout Signature Required 1995 8,878 (A) 6,462 (C) 178 (A) 130 (C) 7,929 159 1997 7,212 (B) 146 (B 10,097 202 1999 9,337 (A)j 9,734 (C)3 187 (A) 195 (C) 9,200 184 2001 8,571 (B) 172 (B) 7,842 157 2003 7,297 (A) 7,605 (C)' 146 (A) 153 (C) 10,6680 214 ' 1991 election 2 1993 election 3 1995 election 4 1997 election 5 1999 election 6 2001 election