The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-11-2004 Charter Review Commission•uu • September 27, 2004 PACKET CR22 Agenda 9 -27 CR23 Agenda 9 -29 CR24 Minutes of September 8 CR25 Draft of Public Hearing Notice Page 2 October 11, 2004 PACKET CR26 Agenda 10 -11 CR27 Minutes of September 27 CR28 Minutes of September 29 CR29 Memorandum from City Attorney re Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter CR30 Copy of Request for Citizen Input CR31 Memorandum from City Clerk re Items Available for Public Input meeting CR32 Memorandum from City Clerk re Room Availability for Future Public Input Meeting CR33 Agenda 10 -12 CR34 Agenda 10.13 �r'lll la *'iii ►lYY I NT� CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 3S6 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.lcgov.org CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Monday, October 11, 2004 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 7:00 -9:30 AM 1. Approve Minutes 2. Public Comment 3. Review Charter Amendments that are subject of litigation 4. Review of public input process for October 12 Discussion of future dates 5. Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:00 AM - 9:30 AM unless noted) October 12 (public hearing 7:00 PM) October 13 (7:00 AM -8:45 AM) October 20 October 27 November 8 November 22 6. Old Business 7. Adjournment (9:30 AM) MINUTES CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 — 7:00 AM HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL DRAFT Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left 8:55), Lynn Rowat (arrived 7:20), Vicki Lensing Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM. He stated that Rowat would be a bit late today. APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8,200 Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. Sueppel clarified with Dilkes what he was proposing on page 3, third paragraph, regarding the 2 -acre exception. MOTION: Novick moved to accept the minutes as written. Sueppel seconded the motion. Motion carried 8 -0 ( Rowat late to meeting). PUBLIC COMMENT Sueppel stated for the record that City Council member Bob Elliott is present at today's meeting. He asked if any of the members had received any correspondence from the public regarding the Charter Review. Davidsen stated that she and Novick received a call from a committee of the League of Women Voters, and they are planning to attend the Wednesday, September 291h meeting. Novick stated that the members who will be attending are doing so as individuals, and are not representing the League at this point. They are interested in raising some questions on leadership among the elected officials. Sueppel noted that there is a conflict with a sheriff's debate on the same night as the Charter Review's first public hearing, but since it is the first hearing, it hopefully won't have too much of an impact. REVIEW CHARTER Sueppel started with Section 7.02 Commencement of Proceedings; Affidavit. Sueppel asked if anyone had any comments on Section A. Commencement. Kubby stated that she had a comment on Section B. Affidavit; City Clerk is not capitalized consistently. Sueppel stated that if no one else had any comments, they would consider this section as "temporarily approved." Chappell asked Karr if the time frame is a problem under Section B. Affidavit where it states "the same day." Karr responded that this has not been a problem. She then answered various questions from members regarding the process in her office. 7.03. Petitions; Revocation of Signatures was discussed next. Kubby discussed A. Number of Signatures, and stated that she is wanting some type of benchmark here, in order to get a broader community input. Other members gave their opinion on this issue, Charter Review Commission September 27, 2004 Page 2 and discussion continued on whether this number is too high, or too low. It was decided to temporarily approve this section for now, and further discussion can be held as more information is provided. Discussion turned to B. Form and Content, with Chappell questioning the phrase "and any other information required by City Council." He asked how this works, by either motion or resolution; and he also stated that he questions how good of an idea it is to have the Council mentioned here. Various scenarios were discussed, and whether or not this is needed in this Section. Sueppel asked why the date of birth is not required here. Karr gave some history on why birth dates are not required in voting, and stated that they added birth date later, in order to aid the process of keeping the registered voters straight. MOTION: Chappell moved to delete the phrase "...and any other information required by City Council" deleted from B. Form and Content. Kubby seconded the motion. Motion carried 9 -0. The discussion then turned to C. Affidavit of Circulator. Members asked various questions regarding this process, and Karr explained how her office handles the affidavit process. Kubby read off of an actual Affidavit form to let members know how the wording is handled, i.e., at the bottom, "qualified" is defined. This section was then temporarily approved. Next, the members discussed D. Time for Filing Initiative Petitions. Members were asked to look at the chart that was prepared, and Dilkes explained the time periods for each section. Some history of past events was discussed, particularly when the City Clerk's office had to spend inordinate amounts of time verifying signatures at the last minute, in order to make a November election. (TAPE ENDS) Dilkes further discussed the 110 -day timeline, and how this was decided upon. Sueppel recommended that Dilkes present them with some language regarding a deadline. Novick asked if they should change the six months, but the other members did not want to change this. Discussion continued on the initiative timeline, and it was noted that referendum already has specific timelines. Therefore, it was decided to have Dilkes prepare suggested wording on this issue. Next E. Time For Filing Referendum Petitions was discussed. Kubby stated that she thought the last sentence was a bit confusing. Sueppel agreed, and stated to Dilkes that he thought it should read something like "the signatures must be secured within the timeline stated in 7.02D..." He stated that with a change in D, it would effect E, and Dilkes said she would review this. Green asked for some clarification on this, and Sueppel stated that as with the First Avenue project, it was passed, and therefore Council could not do anything for two years. Basically, either you have to react very quickly, or you have to let something stand for a while before you can challenge it. Discussion turned next to F. Revocation of Signature. Sueppel stated that he has a concern on this section, regarding the revocation. Karr gave some background on why this was done, giving an example from a past experience, of why people wanted to withdraw their signatures. The question was raised on whether or not a signature is valid, and members asked how would it be known if a signature was valid or not. Discussion Charter Review Commission September 27, 2004 Page 3 continued among the members on the issue of someone signing a petition, under false pretenses, and then wanting to withdraw their signature at a later date. The discussion also touched on the topic of a "yes" vote meaning "no ", and vice versa. Sueppel stated to the members that the issue here is whether there should be any period of time, after a petition is filed, for a signatory to revoke his or her signature, and that would be equally true for the original petition and the supplemental petition. His suggestion is that the time should be less on the supplemental. He then asked each member to give their opinion on the matter. The majority of the members agreed to keeping the wording in this section as is. Section 7.04. Procedure After Filing, A. Certificate of City Clerk — Sueppel questioned the language "upon additional papers," and Karr stated the intent of the wording, saying that it refers to the supplemental petition being handled the same way as the original petition — the same process is followed. Sueppel stated that if members had no problem with this section, they would TA it also. B. Council Review — Chappell started the discussion by asking members if they feel the Council should have some type of standards to make these determinations. Dilkes suggested adding something like "will review on the same basis that the City Clerk reviewed..... or something to that effect. Sueppel encouraged wording be added about Council review on petitions that the City Clerk finds sufficient (since insufficient is already included), and discussion continued with members giving their views. (TAPE ENDS) Sueppel asked if anyone had anything further on this section. Hearing none, this section was TA'd, with Sueppel voting in the negative. C. Court Review; New Petition — Sueppel read this section, and stated that he has two legal issues with this section. One, judicial review is a tern that refers strictly to state law; and two, the whole idea of the city being able to require judicial review by a district court was challenged in Iowa City years ago, and the Supreme Court "slapped" them down. He gave the members a brief background on this type of case, and suggested adding wording that includes "writ of cert." Dilkes agreed that the City cannot confer jurisdiction on the district court and that a challenge would be by a certiorari action. Dilkes will propose revised language. D. Validity of Signatures — The members discussed the wording in this section, and noted that it brings up the issue of valid signatures again, noting that this section actually helps to address the validity issues noted previously. Members agreed to TA this section for now. (Green left meeting at 8:55 AM) PUBLIC HEARING Novick stated that she would like to see "public comments" and "citizen input" toward the top of the media release, public flyer, with the emphasis on the "citizens," rather than on the Charter Review itself. Other members agreed that this is a good idea, as they want the public to be a big part of this. Next, the time was discussed, with members agreeing that giving a starting time of 7:00 PM is best, with no definite ending time. Chappell Charter Review Commission September 27, 2004 Page 4 stated that he feels it is a good idea to list some of the items they are working on, in order to give some reference to the public on issues for them to respond to. Sueppel suggested they list some "exclusions" that they've decided on thus far, as this would give the public something to address. The discussion turned to Kubby discussing public education, and how they can use the public hearings for this. It was also suggested that the first public hearing be left open, with no specific issues being listed. Karr asked the members to think about how they want this public hearing structured. She gave them various issues to consider, such as how they want to start the hearing, how much time they will give the public to speak, how they want to respond to questions, etc. Members discussed issues concerning how they want the room set up (on the dais); how they want the opening statement to be handled (chair to give a verbal summary); setting a 5- minute time limit for the public to speak; a summary of comments received thus far (to be available for hand - outs); having a suggestion sheet or something for the public to weigh in on the Charter Review process; whether the members want the hearing to be televised; having copies of the Charter available; and miscellaneous other details. Further discussion of details will be discussed at the September 29 meeting, and staff will prepare draft of press release /ad/or poster for fiurther discussion at that meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Davidsen moved for adjournment of the meeting at 9:40 AM; seconded by Kubby. Motion carried. MINUTES CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 — 7:00 AM HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL DRAFT Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green, Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM. APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 There were no minutes to approve. PUBLIC COMMENT Sueppel stated that several guests had joined the meeting. Lolly Eggers and Carol Spaziani, both from the League of Women Voters, gave the members some public input from research they have conducted over the past three years, regarding the forms, structures, advantages, and disadvantages of regional government, and how they might apply to Johnson County, and its local jurisdictions. The League spoke with twenty -five some different individuals, and have come up with specific observations and points that they want the Charter Review Committee to be aware of. Some community issues received by the League are: 1) the City Manager needs to be directly responsible to the people; 2) favor a strong elected mayor; 3) need collective leadership; 4) in the City, the City Manager is the leader, whereas in the County, all five supervisors are; 5) professional management inherently slows intergovernmental process; 6) strong personalities with leadership abilities, commitment, and vision need to be involved; 7) the problem is political leadership; 8) the key will be political leadership; 9) I'm in favor of a strong mayor; 10) there must be strong leadership; 11) in favor of a strong mayor. MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the correspondence from the League of Women Voters; Lensing seconded. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS Karr gave the members a couple of drafts of the notification for the upcoming public hearing. Members reviewed the drafts, and started discussion on how they want this notification to read. The majority of the members stated they like draft #1 best. Werner suggested they add the dates of future meetings, as the public can also attend the regular meetings. Davidsen suggested adding the paragraph: "Bill Sueppel, Chair of the ICCRC, will report on the Commission's review of the Charter provisions to date. Thereafter, citizens in attendance or who have submitted written comments, will be recognized. Public input is considered a necessary part of the Commission's review process." Sueppel suggested use of the please "we want to hear from you," in order to peak the public's interest. The Committee members agreed to give Karr and Dilkes the Charter Review Commission September 29, 2004 Page 2 authority to go ahead with a press release, based on today's discussion. Display ads will not be done for this meeting but may be considered for upcoming hearings. Discussion turned to the length of time that the public will be allowed to speak. Everyone agreed that five minutes per speaker would be the standard, and if time allows and someone wants to speak again, they will allow this. Karr stated that the public hearing would be televised. Sueppel asked Karr to come up with some numbers prior to the public hearing, showing the hours spent reviewing, what the Committee has done to date, etc. REVIEW CHARTER Section 7.05. Action on Petitions. — The discussion started with the next section, A. Action by Council, and Chappell asked questions in regards to the time frames, asking if this is enough time for the City Clerk and City Attorney to complete what needs to be done. Dilkes and Karr both stated that the time frames have not been a problem. Sueppel stated that he is concerned about the second sentence, where it states, "...fails to adopt a measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the Council fails to repeal the..." He asked members if they thought it should say "AND" instead of "OR ", and members gave their view, with most stating that it could read either way. Discussion turned to the third full sentence in this section: The Council shall submit to the voters any measure which has been proposed or referred in accordance with the provisions of this Article unless the petition is deemed insufficient pursuant to Section 7.04. Sueppel stated that he feels this sentence is unnecessary, and could even be confusing. The members agreed, and a motion was made to delete the third, full sentence in 7.05, Section A. Action by Council. MOTION: Davidsen moved to delete the third fill sentence of Section A. Action by Council; Kubby seconded. Motion carried. (TAPE ENDS) Section B. Submission to Voters was discussed next. Dilkes gave some background on the forty -day period, and elections. There was no further discussion on this section so it was TAU Section 7.06. Results of Election. A. Initiative. — Sueppel questioned the clause at the end of the first sentence: ...except as provided in Section 7.01B(3). Chappell gave an explanation, stating that an ordinance, which is passed by initiative, cannot be repealed for two years. Consequently, what this clause means is that once an initiative is passed, it is an ordinance, just like any other ordinance, except it cannot be repealed for two years. Sueppel suggested putting a period after "election results," and then have the next sentence start with "The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects..." Karr suggested a coma, instead of a period. Chappell recommended a motion to make this clearer. Charter Review Commission September 29, 2004 Page 3 MOTION: Chappell made a motion to put a period in the first sentence, after "election results"; delete the word "and;" and then start the next sentence with "The adopted measure... "; Novick seconded. Motion carried. B. Referendum. Kubby started the discussion with asking about the wording "vote against it." Members gave their opinion on why the wording is this way. Various wording was discussed, and Sueppel asked members for their approval to have Dilkes rewrite this section for their review. Section 7.07. Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or Requirements. Novick asked why this section needs to be here, as you cannot change any other part of the Charter without an amendment. Dilkes cautioned the members on removing entire sections, and how this can become a problem later. The members decided that this section should stand as is, and TA'd the section. Sueppel stated that they have now reviewed the Charter in full. Chappell noted that ]re had a question in regards to Section 8 Charter Amendments and Review, and whether they can amend this to allow the Council to submit a proposed amendment to the voters at a both General Elections and City Elections. Dilkes stated that the language in Section 8.01 comes from the State Code. The idea of using "Special Election" was discussed, and it was decided that Dilkes would come up with proposed wording for the Committee to review. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE Dilkes stated that she and Karr need to leave Wednesday meetings by 8:45 AM, in order to make a staff meeting that they have every Wednesday. The October 13`h meeting will be from 7 -8:45 AM, with the 201h and 27`h remaining at 9:30 AM. Sueppel asked members to review their calendars for a November date. November 8` and 22°d were both scheduled for 7 -9:30 AM. The members then agreed to have Karr come up with some various dates, and meeting rooms, for future public hearings. She will look at the time period November 15 thru December 15, and will check the library's availability, as well as Harvat Hall. Chappell stated that at a future meeting he would like to discuss the citizen proposals that are the subject of the pending lawsuit. Sueppel asked if Chappell wanted Dilkes to lead this discussion, since she is familiar with it. Sueppel asked if he was referring to the Michael Berent lawsuit, and Chappell stated he was. Sueppel asked that this be added to a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kubby proved for adjournment of the meeting at 9:10 AM; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried. City of Iowa City RE- PRINTED DUE TO PAGINATION ERROR DATE: July 26, 2001 TO: City Council Q l ()/) ✓ 'A' V FROM: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney �m RE: Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter The City Council has asked that I give my opinion on the legality of the proposed amendments to Iowa City's Home Rule Charter that are currently being circulated for signatures. I have seen several versions of the amendments. Attached, from the website http: / /Charteramendments.org, is a copy of the proposed amendments I will comment on here. 11. CONCLUSIONS A. It is my opinion that Amendment No. 1 regarding retention elections for the City Manager and Police Chief is likely inconsistent with the state statutory scheme for city government, which distinguishes between elected and appointed officials, and with which a Home Rule Charter must be consistent. In addition, assuming Steve Atkins is still City Manger at the time of the first retention election is 2003, it is my opinion that the charter amendment and the results of such an election would have no effect on the City's obligation under his employment contract, a provision of which requires 6 months of severance pay upon termination. Finally, the language of the amendment lacks the clarity one would like to see in legislation, leaving a number of questions unanswered and making enforcement difficult. B. It is my opinion that Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 entitled "Police Citizen's Review Board" and 'Community Policing' are not addressed to the 'form of government', and therefore, are not charter amendments, but rather, proposals for local legislation which if made by petition should be made pursuant to the provisions for Initiative and Referendum set forth in Article VII of the Charter. C. There are a number of procedural questions which I have highlighted in the final section of this memo, most of which cannot be fully addressed until the petitions are presented for filing. III. ANALYSIS A. BACKGROUND In order to provide background and a framework for analysis, before addressing the specific amendments I will review the relevant statutes, City Charter provisions and legal principles. 1. Under Chapter 372 of the Iowa Code, there are six forms of city government: 1) Mayor - Council or Mayor - Council with appointed Manager; 2) Commission; 3) Council - Manager-at- Large; 4) Council- Manager -Ward; 6) Home Rule Charter; and 6) Special Charter. Iowa City has a Home Rule Charter form of government. Under section 372,10 a Home Rule � �yrti Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter July 26, 2001 Page 2 Charter must contain provisions for "the powers and duty of the mayor and the council, consistent with the provisions of the City Code." The "City Code" are those chapters of the Iowa Code dealing with cities (Chapters 362, 364, 368, 372, 376, 380, 384, 388 and 392). See Iowa Code §362.1 (2001). Iowa City's existing Home Rule Charter essentially provides for a Council /City Manager form of government with a variation on the at -large and ward forms of government otherwise authorized by State Code, in that three districts are created and three of the Council Members must live in and are nominated from districts, but all voters vote in both the district and at -large races. 2. Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 372.9(8)(d), the adoption of the charter "does not alter any right or liability of the City in effect at the time of the special election at which the charter was adopted." 3. By constitution and statute, cities In Iowa have "Home Rule" authority "to determine their local affairs and government," but only to the extent those determinations are "not inconsistent with the laws of the General Assembly." See Article III, Section 38A of the Iowa Constitution and Iowa Code §364.1. The Iowa Supreme Court has, on many occasions, opined on the bounds of Home Rule authority. 4. Under Section 372.11 of the Iowa Code, a Home Rule Charter may be amended by one of three methods, including the following: "If a petition valid under the provisions of Section 362.4 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." Section 8.01 (c) of the City Charter tracks the state code provision. Unlike other provisions contained in Chapter 372 (e.g., Section 372.13 regarding the calling of an election to fill a Council vacancy), Section 372.11 does not specify when the special election at which the proposed amendment is submitted to the voters must be held. A regular city election is held for nomination or election of officers of the City; a special City election is one held for any other purpose. Iowa Code §39.3. A special election can, but need not, be held on the same day as a regularly scheduled City election. Iowa Code Section 39.2. Under Section 362.4 of the Iowa Code, if a petition is presented to the City Clerk, it must include the signatures of the petitioners, a statement of their place of residence, and the date on which they signed the petition. The petition is valid if signed by eligible electors of the City equal in number to 10% of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular City election (the City Clerk tells me this is 786 (10% of 7,842)). If the petition is valid on its face, the City Clerk shall accept it for filing. If it lacks the required number of signatures, it shall be returned to the petitioner. 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. The objection process in Section 44.8 is to be followed. Section 44.8 provides for objections to be considered by the Mayor and Clerk and one member of the Council chosen by the Council by ballot. 5. Article VII of Iowa City's Home Rule Charter sets forth an initiative and referendum procedure whereby qualified electors have the right to propose ordinances to the Council and, if the Council fails to adopt an ordinance so proposed without any change in substance, to have the ordinance submitted to the voters at an election. Under Article VII, "ordinance" means "all measures 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." The procedure for initiative and referendum is different than the procedure for amendment of the charter by petition. Among other things, initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by "qualified" (registered) electors equal in Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter July 26, 2001 Page 3 number to at least 25% of the number of persons who voted at the last regular City election but not less than 2,500. 6. The electorate has no greater power to legislate than does the City Council itself. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations §16.49 (3d ed.) B. PROPOSED AMENDMENT REGARDING THE RETENTION ELECTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND POLICE CHIEF. As noted above, Section 372.10 of the Iowa Code requires that the powers and duties of the Mayor and the Council be consistent with the provisions of the "City Code ". Under other city manager forms of government (Council- Manager -At -Large form and Council- Manager -Ward form), the State Code specifically provides that the Council "shall appoint a manager". Iowa Code §372.6 and §372.7. These sections are not directly applicable to the Home Rule Charter form. Arguably, a Home Rule charter could change the method of appointment of the City Manager. Applicable to all forms of government, however, is the provision found at Section 372.13 entitled "The Council', which provides that the "appointment" of a City Manager "must be made on the basis of that individual's qualifications and not on the basis of political affiliation" Similarly, under Section 400.13 of the Civil Service provisions of the State Code, the Chief of the Police Department is to be "appointed from the Chiefs Civil Service eligible list." In cities under a Council- Manager form of government, the City Manager makes the "appointmenf' of the Police Chief with the approval of the City Council, and in all other cities the "appointment" is made as provided by City Ordinance or City Charter. While the Home Rule Charter could likely change the method of appointment of either the City Manager or Police Chief, it is the retention election aspect of the proposed amendment that is troubling. in Chapter 372, the words "election" and "appointment" are used often and have very different meanings. In Black's Law Dictionary, the definition of the term "election" stresses a distinction between election and appointment, with appointment referring to a "choice or selection by an individual ", while election refers to a "choice or selection by electors ". Black's Law Dictionary (e ed. 1978). Significantly, under the Commission form of government, the State Code specifically authorizes the City Council to "appolnr the City treasurer or provide for that officer's election, indicating that the legislature views the term "appoint" to have a different meaning than "elect". In contrast to an appointment, a candidate in a retention election must vie for popular support. See Hornsby v Campbell, 480 S.E. 2d 189, 191 (Ga 1997) (holding that a retention election constituted an "election "); Sinawski v. Cuevas, 506 N.Y.S. 2d 396, 398 (N.Y.S.Ct. 1986) (holding that recall of city officials by direct vote of electorate was not a proper subject for a charter amendment and distinguishing between "removal" as authorized by statute and "recall "). An in depth analysis of the Iowa Supreme Court's home rule precedent, as will be required if these matters are litigated, is beyond the scope of this memo. I have, however, during the course of my research reviewed many of those cases again. While the words used by the Court in home rule cases are the same, the results vary and recent cases have divided the Court. It is very difficult, I believe, to predict the result in a particular case. For example, in City of Clinton v. Sheridan, 530 N.W.2d 690 (Iowa 1995), the Iowa Supreme Court held that initiative and referendum provisions of Clinton's Home Rule Charter were not inconsistent with State statutes that placed limits on how the City Council exercised its power. In the more recent case of Goodall v. Humboldt County 575 N.W. 2d 486 (Iowa 1998), in a decision written by Justice Ternus, who filed a dissenting opinion in City of Clinton, the Supreme Court held that ordinances enacted by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors regulating large livestock confinement facilities were irreconcilable with State law because they revised a State regulatory scheme, and Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter July 26, 2001 Page 4 therefore, were prohibited. In this opinion Justice Tenus stated: "As noted earlier, any local ordinance must remain faithful to the legislative intent underlying a state statute." Id. at 506 In light of the Goodall case, the dichotomy repeatedly established in State Code between elected and appointed officials and the specific provision of Section 372.11, which requires Home Rule charters to be consistent with the provisions of State Code. In my opinion the proposed amendment subjecting the City Manager and Police Chief to retention vote likely is irreconcilable with State law, and therefore preempted. The current City Manager has an employment contract with the City. Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 372.9(8)(b) the adoption of the charter does not alter any right or liability of the City in effect at the time the Charter is adopted. In my opinion this would apply equally to charter amendments. Steve Atkins's contract provides for six months severance pay if he is terminated when he is willing and able to perform his duties except in limited circumstances involving conviction of a crime involving personal gain. The proposed amendment calls for the first retention vote to be held in 2003. Assuming Steve Atkins is still the City Manager in 2003, it is my opinion that the charter amendment will have no effect on the City's obligations under this contract. Finally, the language of the proposed amendment lacks the clarity one would like to see in legislation. For example: Is a retention vote held every 4 years without regard to when the manager or the police chief is initially appointed? The language talks about the "appointment" being subject to a retention vote every four years beginning in 2003 but seems to say there will be a retention election every other regular election without regard to the date of appointment. Does a manager who is appointed in August 2007 stand for retention election in November 2007? Can a manager or police chief who is not retained be later re- appointed by Council? Can a manager or police chief who is retained be terminated by Council? How many votes must the manager or chief receive to be retained? C. PROPOSED AMENDMENT #2 ENTITLED "POLICE CITIZEN'S REVIEW BOARD" This amendment seeks to amend Article 6 of the charter entitled "Boards, Commissions, and Committees" In general, Article 5 currently allows the Council to establish boards, to appoint persons to those boards and remove them in accordance with state law, and to establish rules for the boards. The proposed amendment is to create a permanent" Police Citizens Review Board vesting it with certain minimum powers. While the proposed language creates some ambiguities and difficulties in terms of interpretation and implementation; I do not believe such legislation, it enacted, would be inconsistent with state law. I will touch only briefly on my concerns about the lack of clarity in the language. First, the introductory phrase being added to Section 5.01 "with the exception of the Police Citizens Review Board" is misplaced. Read literally it says the Council could not establish the Police Citizens Review Board and specify title, duties, length of terms, etc. Secondly, subparagraph A2 states that the Police Citizens Review Board must investigate citizen claims of misconduct by sworn police officers" As you know in your dealings with the current ordinance, citizens make complaints or claims in different ways — to the City Manager, to the Police Department, to the Police Citizens Review Board. Does this language cover all citizen complaints? Is a "claim" different than a "complaint'? Finally, although it is likely Iowa City could, in accordance with home rule power and authority grant subpoena power to the PCRB (see Iowa City Human Rights Commission vs. Roadway Express, Inc., 397 N.W. 2d 608, 610 (Iowa 1986), this conclusion does not answer the more complicated question of whether, because of constitutional, contractual, or statutory rights a witness such as a police officer could be compelled to answer to the PCRB. Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter July 26, 2001 Page 5 The problem I see with this proposed amendment is not, with the exception of the ambiguities pointed out above, with the substance of the amendment, but rather, with the procedure being used to enact this legislation. In my opinion, this is not a charter amendment. Under 362.2(3) of the state code, "charter" "means the form of government selected by a city as provided in Chapter 372" Under Chapter 372.9 "a city to be governed by the home rule charter form shall adopt a home rule charter in which its form of government is set forth," A city Is a municipal corporation. Iowa Code §362.2(4). The charter is "an act of incorporation "; "the instrument evidencing the act of a legislature, governor, court, or other authorized department or person, by which the corporation has been created." McQuillan, Municipal Corporations §9.02 (3d ed.) A charter "confers powers that did not exist before. Id. In addressing the distinction between a charter amendment and legislation the Maryland Court of Appeals explained: °Absent an intention to permit a contrary usage, a charter amendment within the context of Art. XI -A is necessarily limited in substance to amending the form or structure of government initially established by adoption of the charter. A charter amendment, therefore, differs in its fundamental character from a simple legislative enactment. Its content cannot transcend its limited office and be made to serve or function as a vehicle through which to adopt local legislation." Cheeks v Cedlair Corporation, 415 A. 2d 255,260 (Md. Ct. App. 1980) (holding, in part, that a proposal to create a new agency with authority over landlord tenant matters was legislative in character and not addressed to the form or structure of government in any fundamental sense, and therefore, was not a charter amendment.) Thus, the charter is a particular type of law which sets forth Iowa City's form of government. Article 7 of the charter allows legislation to be proposed, with some exceptions, by initiative and referendum. The initiative and referendum provisions specifically exclude charter amendments from those subjects to which the right of initiative and referendum extends. In my opinion the proposed PCRB provision relates not to Iowa City's "form of government", but rather, is legislation that, if proposed by petition, should be done so under the initiative and referendum procedures of the charter. Just as the Council would make changes to the PCRB by ordinance, the right of the electors to do so is under the initiative and referendum provisions of the charter, not by an amendment to the charter. D. PROPOSED AMENDMENT #3 ENTITLED "COMMUNITY POLICING". The first section of this proposed amendment entitled "Citation in Lieu of Arrest" provides that in accordance with state law Iowa City police officers "shall issue citations in lieu of arrest for non- violent misdemeanor offenses, unless there is a reasonable belief that a person will pose a danger to the community." State law permits the issuance of a citation in lieu of arrest for most offenses for which an accused person would be "eligible for bail" Iowa Code §805.1(1). Iowa Code §811.1 lists all non - bailable offenses. In addition to traffic and motor vehicle equipment violations this scheme permits the issuance of a citation in lieu of arrest for even some serious felonies. The proposed amendment dealing with citations in lieu of arrest is not as broad and applies to only "non- violent, misdemeanor offenses, unless there is a reasonable belief that a person will pose a danger to the community." In my opinion, this is legislation that Iowa City could enact. Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter July 26, 2001 Page 6 Section 6.02 entitled "Police Should Be a Peacekeeping Force" states that the police should not engage in certain practices "without following a set of guidelines approved by the Police Citizens Review Board and the City Council." In addition, it provides that arrests of persons in possession of personal use amounts of marijuana should not be a priority of the Iowa City Police Department. Finally, it provides that persons subject to arrest warrants for non - violent misdemeanor offenses should be notified of the existence of the warrant and provided an opportunity to appear for booking unless there is evidence that the person will pose a danger to the community or risk of flight. In substance, such provisions are within Iowa City's home rule power and authority. Again, however, in my opinion this amendment deals not with Iowa City's form of government, but rather, is legislation which, if proposed by citizen petition, should be proposed under the initiative and referendum provisions of the City charter and not approached as a charter amendment. E. PROCEDURE. In addition to the substantive issues there are a number of procedural issues that may arise. First, while the petition being circulated asks that the amendments be submitted to the voters at the November election, Section 372,11 of the Iowa Code provides that if the petition is valid council must submit the proposed amendment to the voters at a °special City election ". It doesn't say when this election must be held or that it must be held at the time of the regular election. While one can assume the election must be held within a reasonable time after submission of the petition, reasonableness will depend partly on when the petition is submitted and whether there are any challenges pursuant to Section 362.4 of the Iowa Code. The City Clerk must submit any ballot questions for the November election to the Commissioner of Elections no later than August 31'r. There are a number of ways that the validity of the proposed charter amendments may be raised. They could be the subject of a declaratory judgment action or injunction action either before being submitted to the voters or after submission if passed, with the plaintiff being either the proponents or opponents of the amendments or the City Council itself. The issue of whether the proposed amendments conform to state code can only be finally determined by a court. I am, of course, available to answer any questions you may have. cc: Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Assistant City Attorneys Police Chief Winkeihake eleanor /mem/homerule.doc _ r 1 We want to hear from you ^"lV Iowa City's Charter Review Commission has scheduled a meeting to receive citizen input on the Iowa City Charter ,ITY OF IOWA CITY Tuesday, October 12, 7:00 PM, Harvat Hall of City Hall, 410 East Washington Street. The Commission's duty is to perform a review and make recommendations for possible revisions to the City Charter, which supplies the groundwork and organization for Iowa City's government. This review takes place once every ten years, and must be completed within a twelve month period. An important part of this review process is to hear citizens' opinions regarding the present Charter. Citizens are encouraged to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments (limit of 5 minutes per person). Written comments may also be addressed to the Charter Review Commission, c/o City Clerk, 410 East Washington Street, or by e -mail to citycharter @iotiva- city.org. Commission Chair Bill Sueppel will report on the Commission's review of the Charter provisions to date. Thereafter, citizens in attendance or who have submitted written comments will be recognized. Public input is considered a necessary part of the Commission's review process. What is the City Charter? The Iowa City Charter is a document that determines how the government of Iowa City is organized. The 19 page document provides the legal basis for: • Composition of the City Council — number of members; district and at -large members; • How the Council is elected and Mayor is chosen; • Employment and duties of the City Manager; • Relationship with City Boards and Commissions; • Restrictions on campaign contributions; • Procedures for citizen initiatives and referenda. • Other administrative and organizational elements The current Charter is available for review at: www.ic og v org/citycharter, City Clerk's office at 410 East Washington Street; or at the Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Linn Street. Minutes of the prior Commission meetings are also available at www.ic og v.or citycharter or in the City Clerk's office. Call 356 -5041 for further information. Future Opportunities for Input Working Commission meetings are held at City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, at 7:00 a.m. Following is a schedule for upcoming meetings: October 11, October 13; October 20; October 27; November 8; November 22. All Commission meetings are open to the public. Citizens are always welcome and public input is encouraged. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Agendas are posted at City Hall and available on the City website and in the City Clerk's office. r �� =per CITY OF IOWA CITY ` � MEMORANDUM DATE: October 6, 2004 TO: Charter Review Commission FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk RE: Items Available for Public Input meeting The following items will be available at the October 12 public input evening meeting as requested: Copies of the Charter Copies of all correspondence received to date (bundled) For Chair info numbers like: hours spent reviewing number of meetings etc. -ft-ILry CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.lcgov.org DATE: October 7, 2004 TO: Charter Review Commission FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk RE: Room Availability for future public input meetings At your request I have research meeting room availability for scheduling another public input meeting between November 15 and December 15. The following dates and locations are available: Harvat Hall, City Hall, 7:00 PM Wednesday, November 17 Monday, November 29 Tuesday, November 30 Wednesday, December 1 Wednesday, December 15 Public Library, 7:00 PM Wednesday, November 17 Monday, November 29 Wednesday, December 1 Wednesday, December 8 Wednesday, December 15 It is best to decide a date as soon as possible as the room availability is limited and with the holidays personal calendars also fill up. S /charterzeview /roomavailabi I ity.doc „7 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION PUBLIC INPUT MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 7:00 PM 1. Welcome and background by Chair 2. Public Input 3. Adjournment CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240 -1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA LG �GJ�lZ,�e�lY�2� Monday, October 13, 2004 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 7:00 -8:45 AM 1. Approve Minutes 2. Public Comment 3. Review Charter 4. Review of public input of October 12 Discussion of future dates 5. Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:00 AM - 9:30 AM unless noted) October 20 October 27 November 8 November 22 6. Old Business 7. Adjournment (8:45 AM) w a Clem 10 YEARS OF DISTRICT ELECTIONS Primary Results Year I District November Results District I City Wide 2003 A None Wilburn Pease Wilburn Pease 1362 738 713 888 342 5234 2057 C Bailey Shannon Pfab Bailey Shannon Battey Shannon 1999 A 613 317 187 1036 430 4469 3056 2001 B Champion Ross Major Borchardt 1689 611 351175 Champion Ross 2505 1254 Champion Ross 6021 4257 1362 738 713 2219 1777 4750 3735 1999 A Wilburn Hanson Buss 333 242 154 Wilburn Hanson 762 762 Wilburn Hanson 4361 2908 C None Pfab Thornberry 821 419 Pfab Thornberry 4217 3374 1997 B Champion Baker Lovelinskey Champion Baker Champion Baker 1362 738 713 2219 1777 4750 3735 1995 A None C None Norton Buss 1185 866 Thornberry Pigott 711 857 Norton Buss 5566 3747 Thornberry Pigott 5084 4639 ST Date: Date: October 12, 2004 To: Charter Review Commission From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Charter Revisions Attached you will find a red -lined version of the charter which reflects the changes that the commission has tentatively agreed to as well as the changes in language the commission has asked me to address. With respect to several of the substantive issues, it is my intention to provide you with a memo summarizing my conclusions. However, I sensed sentiment on the part of the commission at its last meeting to receive the red -lined version as soon as possible, so I am providing it to you now. The memo will follow shortly. Attachment cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk eleanor /charter reNew /reNSions.doc Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 The Citizens of Iowa City, Iowa, by virtue of the enactment of this Charter, adopt the following principles: 1. That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the responsibility for it. 2. That the government of Iowa City is a service institution, responsive and accountable to its citizens. 3. That City officials should be accessible to the people and have an affirmative obligation to secure for each person equality of opportunity as well as due process and equal protection of law. 4. That each citizen has a right to obtain fair, equal, and courteous treatment from each City official and employee. 5. That the City should perform all acts and take all measures necessary and desirable to promote the general health, safety and welfare of its residents, to encourage the participation of its citizens in policy formation and to secure the full benefits of "Home Rule." 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," ^. xcept as provi ed in Article "TT, means a City law of a general and permanent nature. 12. "Measure" , except as provided in Article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion. (Ord. No. 85- 3227, § 2(1), 3- 12 -85) Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 Section 1.01. Powers of the city. The City has all powers possible under the Constitution and laws of this State. 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. 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. 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. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85; Ord. No. 85 -3273, § 2, 12- 17 -85) 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. 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 ;y an eligible elector of that Council District. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) Section 2.04. Terms. At the first election under this Charter, all seven Councilmembers are to be elected; the Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 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. Section 2.05. Compensation. The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the Mayor and the other Council members, and the Council shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December immediately following a regular City election. (Ord. No. 85- 3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) 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. 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 shall present to the City no later than February 28 an annual State of the City message. C. The Mayor pro tem shall act as Mayor during the absence of the Mayor. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85; Ord. No. 95 -3671, § 1, 3- 28 -95) 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. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) Section 2.08. Appointments. A. The Council shall appoint the City Manager. B. The Council shall appoint the City Clerk. C. The Council shall appoint the City Attorney. D. The Council shall appoint all members of the City's Boards, except as otherwise provided by State law. 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. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85; Ord. No. 95 -3671, § 1, 3- 28 -95) Section 2.09. Rules; records. The Council may determine its own rules and shall maintain records of its proceedings Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 consistent with State law. Section 2.10. Vacancies. The Council shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective City office as provided by State law. Section 2.11. Council action. A. Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the Councilmembers except as otherwise provided by State law. B. T— e Council may submit to the .,,.ief .vithaut a pposition for the rep, a ndment- orenactm� n� ate be voted upe„ at any succeeding gen.n;, -re,�i e l City election, - and if the-piepositio " itted majerty of t e st-on it at tile -etestien the measur shall -be- repeftle , amended or enacted aeeordinglg 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. B. 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 Manager pertaining to the appointment or removal of such employee. C. A Councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or direction of any person appointed by or under the control of the City Manager. 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 City Clerk a valid petition requesting that his or her name be placed on the ballot for that office. The petition must be filed not more than sixty- five (65) days nor less than forty (40) days before the date of the election and 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 the ten (10) persons. B. An eligible elector of the City may become a candidate for an at -large council seat by filing with the City Clerk a petition requesting that the candidate's name be placed on the ballot for that office. The petition must be filed not more than sixty -five (65) days nor less than forty (40) days before the date of the election and must be signed Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 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. No. 77 -2864, § 2, 9 -6 -77; Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85; Ord. No. 95- 3671, § 1, 3- 28 -95) 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 candidate for that Council seat. 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. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) 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. No. 85- 3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) 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. Section 4.02. Accountability; removal. A. The City Manager is under the direction and supervision of the Council and holds office at its pleasure. Unless otherwise provided by contract, a City Manager removed by the Council is entitled to receive termination pay of not less than two months' salary, computed from the date of the resolution of removal. 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. Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 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. 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. (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 or employ persons to occupy positions for which no other method of appointment is provided by State law or this Charter. (4)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. (5)Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the City, make supervise all purchases of materials and supplies, and assure that such materials and supplies are received and are of specified quality and character. (6)Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and undertakings of the City, and all City -owned property including buildings, plants, systems, and enterprises, and to have charge of their construction, improvement, repair and maintenance except where otherwise provided by State law. (7)Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans, drawings, specifications and estimates for the City. (8)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. (9)Prepare and submit to the Council the annual budgets in the form prescribed by State law. (10) Provide the Council monthly an itemized written monthly financial report. (I I) Attend Council meetings and keep the Council fully advised of the financial and other conditions of the City and its needs. (12) 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. (13) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and professional assistance to Boards within limitations of the budget. (14) Perform such other and further duties as the Council may direct. 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 Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 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. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) 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. Section 5.01. Establishment. 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. 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 nominations applications by citizens. The Council shall establish ,.,..,&ion-s procedures for the removal of members f eduse shall be consistent with State law. (Ord No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) 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 [additional discussion necessary]. 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. Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 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. No. 95 -3671, § 1, 3- 28 -95) Section 6.02. Disclosure of contributions and expenditures. The Council, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring, immediately before and after each regular, special, primary, or run -off election, 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. No. 85 -3228, § 1, 3- 12 -85) Section 6.03. Definition. Within this article an experiditur, -or "contribution" doe"%Hneim-"erson's time dented to aid or proin Re*`. ° P. aiididate!s non=i11- action -ran shall be defined as that term is defined in Chanter 56 ( "Camnaian Finance ") of the Code of Iowa. 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. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) Section 7.01. General provisions. A. Authority. (1)Initiative. The qualified electors have the right to propose ordinances- measuresto the Council and, if the Council fails to adopt an o lar ee a measure so proposed without any change in substance, to have the EnAinanee measure submitted to the voters at an election. (2)Referendum. The qualified electors have the right to require reconsideration by the Council of an existing erdinanee measure and, if the Council fails to repeal such ordinance- measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an election. (3)Definition. Within this article, "ounce measure" means all measures ordinances, amendments, resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of a permanent rather than temporary character and (b) Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 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. (I)Subject matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall not extend to any of the following: (aj_Any measure of an executive or administrative nature. (b)The City budget. (cZThe appropriation of money. (LThe 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. aAmendments affecting the City Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan [Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan ?], egose °FF� tr =et-of land Fmo:e-in-size. (k) Public improvements subsequent to City Council action to authorize acquisition of property, the acquisition of property or notice to bidders, 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 ordinance 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 ordinance measure. No ordinane€ 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 qualified voters electors of the City. (2)Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because it repeals an existing ordinance measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new ordinance measure and (b) an initiative petition may amend an existing ordinance measure. (3)Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal an ordinance 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 ordinance measure under consideration and such ordinance Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 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 ounce a measure vote to repeal or amend the ordinance measure and the vote is certified. E. City obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing ordinance 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 afditi }ee measure during the time it was in effect. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) 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 efdinanee measure or citing the ordinance 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. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3 -12- 85) Section 7.03. Petitions; revocation of signatures. A. Number of signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least twenty -five percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular City election, but such signatures shall be no fewer than two thousand five hundred qualified electors. Any petition that does not, on its face, contain the minimum required signatures defined herein shall be deemed insufficient for filing under this article, and no supplementary petition shall be permitted. 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, and address of the person signing- and the date the signature is executed;, and any other ntb red by 0145, Gounei1. The form shall also provide space for the signer's birthdate, but a failure to enter a birthdate shall not invalidate a signer's signature. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the er&nanee measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the city clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the a;w measure being proposed or referred. Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 C. Affidavit of circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a qualified 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 ordinanee 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. E. Time for filing referendum petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty days after final adoption by the Council of the erdinanee 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. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85; Ord. No. 90 -3462, § 1, 6 -26- 90) Section 7.04. Procedure after filing. A. Certificate of city clerk; amendment. Within twenty days after a petition is filed which contains the minimum required signatures, as set forth in Section 7.03.A above, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to the petition's sufficiency. If the petition is insufficient, the Clerk's certificate shall specify the particulars wherein the petition is defective. The Clerk shall also promptly send a copy of the certificate to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified insufficient may be amended once, provided, however, that one or more of the original petitioners files a notice of intention to amend the original petition, such notice to be filed with the City Clerk within two days after receiving a copy of the certificate, and the petitioner also files a supplementary petition upon additional papers within fifteen days after receiving a copy of such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall comply with the requirements of subsections B and C of Section 7.03. Within fifteen days after a supplementary petition is filed, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition, as amended and supplemented, and shall promptly send a copy of such certificate to the petitioners by registered mail, as in the case of an original petition. If a petition or amended petition is certified sufficient, or if the petition or amended petition is certified insufficient and one or more of the Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 petitioners do not request Council review under subsection B of this Section within the time prescribed, the City Clerk shall promptly present the certificate to the Council. B. Council review. If a petition has been certified insufficient by the City Clerk and one or more of the petitioners do not file notice of intention to amend it or if an amended petition has been certified insufficient by the City Clerk, one or more of the petitioners may, within two days after receiving a copy of such certificate, file with the City Clerk a request that it be reviewed by the Council. The Council shall review the certificate at its next meeting following the filing of such a request, but not later than thirty days after the filing of the request for review, and shall rule upon the sufficiency of the petition. C. Court review.; new p€ titian- Bach-t�ua4fi ell C. has ° right to judicial to the Suffic ienC of�-ro ediags f6f.judleial -v review �m will vleiu- rrzxiL$cimd-inum be tile.] inthe State District Court F r johnsen county. The+igh - e d ,pen the time!), filing of a-req est for ey ewtill ier Seetio, 7.04B, „1 the filing of tile petitionlfAr co..,•e review ,:th: tl,..•t., d, fte • ,fete ation- by- C- otmev -ii -as 4o4he . 'F- mriicie°ney 11 9th— etv"'mA d et v""r"arloi 'f'rn "scrfFEf@ieyT @Virrr siiSt mmed- ip6i' ev"•t "°v'ed',' shall t filing f a tfion_ or-il,. purpose-, To the extent shall net e�ft#n@-pHfp allowed by law, Court review of the Council's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. D. Validity of signatures. A petition shall be deemed sufficient for the purposes of this article if it contains valid signatures in the number prescribed by Section 7.03 and is timely filed, even though the petition may contain one or more invalid signatures. A signature shall be deemed valid unless it is not the genuine signature of the qualified elector whose name it purports to be, or it was not voluntarily and knowingly executed. A valid signature need not be in the identical form in which the qualified elector's name appears on the voting rolls, nor may a signature be deemed invalid because the address accompanying the name on the petition is different from the address for the same name on the current voting rolls if the qualified elector's birth date is provided and is shown on the voting rolls. (Ord. No. 85.3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85; Ord. No. 90 -3462, § 2, 6- 26 -90; Ord. No. 95 -3671, § 1, 3- 28 -95) Section 7.05. Action on petitions. A. Action by council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been determined sufficient, the Council shall promptly consider the proposed initiative erdinanee measure or reconsider the referred erdinanee measure. If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative ordinanee measure and fails to adopt an ordinanW a measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the Council fails to repeal the referred owe measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or referred Ordinance measure to the qualified electors of the city as hereinafter prescribed. 41he- 9oune- 4- shall-subnrit to the voters e rdin•.., 1 1 has l.��osed' -or referred ' PElailc-e - with ee��;as� Leo the provisions of this Article .,.,less -t! e-pet :t;,.., is aee.,,ed insufficient pursuant-to Sec4ien- 7,94 -_If at any time more than thirty days before a scheduled initiative or Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 referendum election the Council adopts the proposed initiative etdinanee measure or adopts an ordinance a measure which is similar in substance or if the Council repeals a referred ordinance measure, the initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred ordinance measure shall not be submitted to the voters. B. B-.-Submission to voters. (I)Initiative. The vote of the City on a proposed or referre d erdinanee 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 appropriate sixty or thirty day period provided for consideration ononsid eratie in Section 7.05A, provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than 110 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 80 dUs 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.,-hewev ' "°' ' Eetineil „ provide for ° special ref ,. °,,,r...., eleefion on a referred erdinanee an), time zhe- expiration of the thirty paired - provided for side atio in Section 7.05A. C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred ordinance 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 orrdinanee measure shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. No. 77 -2858, § 2, 9- 16 -77; Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2),3-12-85) Section 7.06. Results of election. A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative erdinanee measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results_ And The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as ordinances measures of the same kind adopted by the Council, except as provided in Section 7.0113(3). If conflicting erdinanees 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 er&ianee measure vote against i t in favor of repealing the measure, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results. Section 7.07. Prohibition on establishment of stricter conditions or Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 requirements. The Council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by this Charter. 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 Ccity election, and a 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 signed- by- eligible-eleeters of the -City equal in .,.,., ber to ten percent of the .,erso.,s who veted a%the last ,...,.eedi..,,...,,,..4 ff City election- 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 Ccity election, and the amendment does not become effective until approved by a majority of those voting. C. If a petition signed by eligible electors oNhe -Gity equal in number to ten percent of .f,,.. voted- "t the ceding regular C-:t, elect:,.., valid under the the �^ �- las�pr 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 Ccity election, and the amendment becomes effective if approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2) 3- 12 -85) 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. The Council shall 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. The Commission may also recommend to the Council that it exercise its power of amendment pursuant to Section 8.0113 of this Charter on a matter recommended by the Commission. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85) 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 No. 76 -2792, on January 2, 1976. The following table shows the disposition of amendments to the Charter: Ordinance Ordinance No. 02 -4019 Page 4 Number Date Section Disposition 77 -2826 3 -15 -77 II 6.01 77 -2858 9 -06 -77 2 7.0513 77 -2864 9 -06 -77 2 3.01 85 -3227 3 -12 -85 2(1) Definitions 7,8 2(2) 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 -85 1 6.02 85 -3273 12 -17 -85 2 2.01 90 -3462 6 -26 -90 1 7.03A 2 7.04A 95 -3671 3 -28 -95 1 2.0613, 2.08 C,E, 3.O1A, 6.01, 7.04D 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. _J) .7L % A COMMUNITY PROCESS PROPOSAL ® / �3 TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Submitted by Karen Kubby / Summary of proposal: A small group public process where people are asked to respond to a potential change in the charter and look for the advantages and unintended consequences if the change were implemented. Purpose of this proposal: As a committee we are charged with reviewing and, if appropriate, offering changes to the charter to the council and our community. For some, this document is important, but rather dry and uninteresting. I want our community to find this process of utmost importance and to have the commission create some energy and "buzz" about the process of review and interest in the results. Creating a format for community discussion that has some educational goals, allows for more intimate discussion, and tries to live out some of the values of the charter would be fruitful. It might also be a step towards facilitating a more dynamic community dialogue about our city charter. Utilizing a process that allows for more grassroots ownership over the process may just generate the kind of energy and interest we all want. Results of these discussions can guide us in our final decision - making process. The proposal: Take the 4 most substantial potential recommendations for city charter change through this public discussion process. There will be time for each participant to be part of a small group discussion around two of the four topics. Each group would meet for 30 -40 minutes. Introduce the 4 topics: *current charter *commission's potential change *rationale for change (transparency, closer democracy, ease of understanding, etc.) *explain how one change may affect other parts of the current charter Participants divide into 4 discussion groups based on topic. There are commission members at each table who act as facilitators. We supply someone to take good notes (this might have to be an official city staff person- -for open records purposes). There are red lined copies of that section of the charter at the table, as well as one copy of the full current charter text (or red -lined version so all potential changes that might be part of the discussion can be outlined. Each facilitator is supplied with the following questions for discussion: 1. Do you understand the change suggested? Allow for clarifying questions and response so that everyone has the same information and understanding about the proposal. 2. How do you feel about this change? 3. No matter how you feel about the change, what might be some benefits to this change for the community? 4. No matter how you feel about the change, what might be some negative consequences of this change for the community? The notes are then gathered and used as another tool for the commission to use during our subsequent discussions and decision - making process.