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