HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-2004 Charter Review CommissionPage 2
September 27, 2004 PACKET
CR22 Agenda 9 -27
CR23 Agenda 9 -29
CR24 Minutes of September 8
CR25 Draft of Public Hearing Notice
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
October 20, 2004 PACKET
CR35 Agenda 10 -20
CR36 Minutes of October 11
CR37 Minutes of October 12
CR38 Minutes of October 13
CR39 E -mail from Garry and Betsy Klein re Recommendations for the City Charter
Commission
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
(319) 3S6 -5000
(319) 3S6 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Harvat Hall, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
7:00 -9:30 AM
1. Approve Minutes
2. Public Comment
Receive letter from Garry Klein
3. Community Process Proposal submitted by Member Kubby
4. Publicity for December 1 public input session
5. Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:00 AM - 9:30 AM unless noted)
October 27
November 8
November 22
December 1 (public input session; 5:30 PM; Library)
6. Review Charter
7. Old Business
8. Adjournment (9:30 AM)
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
DRAFT
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick (left
at 9:25 AM), Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left at 8:50 AM), Lynn Rowat, William
Sueppel, Chair
Members Absent: Vicki Lensing
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:05 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27 and SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Sueppel asked if the members had any corrections or comments for the
minutes. Davidsen said she had comments for the September 29 minutes; she then
moved to approve the September 27, 2004, minutes.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to accept the September 27, 2004, minutes as written;
seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 8 -0.
Davidsen stated that she wanted it made clear that the representatives that spoke from the
League of Women Voters were there on their own, and speaking for the League. She
stated that the second sentence, under Public Comment, "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" Davidsen would like it
made clearer that these people were speaking as individuals, and not as the League of
Women Voters. Sueppel stated that he understood it to be the reports of others'
comments. Novick stated that the League has a study committee that has done some
interviews, and these comments were from that study group, and not from the League
itself. She suggested that they mention the Regional Government Committee. Karr said
she would add the Regional Government Committee to the second line, and members
agreed.
Sueppel stated that he has not noticed mention of Kubby's report on voting returns. Karr
said it was distributed at the meeting on the 29 "i, but that it was not formally accepted.
Sueppel asked that some mention be made of this report.
MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the September 29, 2004, minutes as amended;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Charter Review Commission
October 11, 2004
Page 2
REVIEW CHARTER
Chappell discussed Dilkes' memo of July 26, 2001, in regards to Proposed Amendments
to the Home Rule Charter. Three amendments were proposed at that time for: 1) to
provide for Council appointment of both the City Manager and the Chief of Police, and to
have each subject to a retention vote; 2) to make permanent the Police Citizens Review
Board; 3) create a new article directing the police to use citation in lieu of arrest for non-
violent misdemeanor offenses to limit the use of certain police procedures, and giving
non - violent offenders the opportunity to show up voluntarily instead of arresting them.
After giving some history on the decisions at that time, Chappell asked if anyone felt that
these issues should be part of the Charter amendments, and if so, which do people want to
pursue further. Members showed an interest in discussing the City Manager and Police
Chief positions, and how the appointments are made. At the request of the Commission,
Karr explained her involvement in the process used in the past, where a staff team gave
their recommendations to the City Manager for the current Police Chief position. Rowat
talked about the accountability of these positions, and the part the Council plays in this.
The members discussed how the Police Chief position is different from other department
heads within the City, and also how policy is made within the City and its various
departments. Dilkes stated that it has always been interpreted that the City Manager
would have the City Council approve his selection for Police Chief. Green asked if
everyone would give their opinion on the issue of having the Police Chief appointed by
the Council. Kubby stated she would be in favor. Chappell said he would be in favor of
looking into the issue further. Novick stated she would not be in favor. Green stated he
would be in favor. Sueppel and Werner both stated they would not be. (TAPE ENDS)
Davidson stated she would be interested in a Police Citizen Review Board, and encourage
an ordinance to the effect of that. Karr stated that there is such a board now. Davidsen
stated that having this board more in the forefront would be her thought, but she wanted
to think it over more. Rowat stated he would be opposed to the issue. It was decided that
this issue would be revisited at a later date. The suggestion was also made to have the
City Manager and/or the City Council members meet with the members, and have a
discussion on whatever issues they feel need addressed. (BREAK)
REVIEW OF PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS
Rowat asked if they could review tomorrow's public hearing process, before they start
the review process of the Charter. The members agreed with Sueppel that they were
happy with the announcement of the hearing. Karr asked the members if they wanted to
tentatively set a second public hearing date. It was decided to look at Wednesday,
December I", at the library, 5:30 PM. Since Davidson will not be available on December
15t, Karr will get a tape of that hearing to her.
REVIEW CHARTER (cont.)
Dilkes stated that there were a number of questions posed to her by members as they
carried out their review process the first time through. She is planning on having a memo
for the members, with her opinions and any answers to questions posed, by the end of the
month.
Charter Review Commission
October 11, 2004
Page 3
The Commission began the re- review of the Charter, beginning with the Preamble.
There were no changes or additions voiced.
MOTION: Davidson moved to TA (temporarily approve) the Preamble of the
Charter; seconded by Green. Motion carried 8 -0.
Definitions — Davidsen questioned items 11 and 12, and Dilkes noted the change made
with the use of "measure." The issue of a directly elected mayor was discussed, and it
was noted that this section would have to change if that process were to change.
MOTION: Green moved to TA the Definitions section of the Charter; Rowat
seconded. Motion carried 8 -0.
Article I Powers of the City — Sueppel asked if there were any comments or questions.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA all of Article I; seconded by Novick. Motion
carried 8 -0.
Article II City Council — Davidsen asked about "eligible electors" and what the
rationale is in not having "qualified electors." Karr stated that this is State code. Sueppel
stated they would first look at Section 2.01. Composition. Novick stated that she has
questions regarding the districts only, but not the seven - member council.
MOTION: Rowat moved to TA Section 2.01 Composition as is in the Charter;
seconded by Davidson. Motion carried 8 -0.
Sueppel asked if anyone was interested in charging the number of Council members, as
far as at -large versus district. Kubby asked that they put this in the "discussion hopper,"
as it is something she wants to revisit, once they get through some other topics. Chappell
noted that his suggestion initially was to have the mayor position be an at -large position,
and not be a monumental change, as some have suggested. Discussion continued with
members reviewing the issue of having the mayor be in an at -large seat, along with three
other at -large members, and the remaining three members would be from specific
districts. Karr questioned how often the mayoral position would be elected, and it was
stated that it would be every four years, like other Council seats. The members agreed
that this issue would need to be addressed further. (Green left meeting at 8:50 AM)
(TAPE ENDS)
The discussion continued on the topic of how many Council members to have, and
whether they should be at -large or district seats, and also how the mayoral position would
fit in with this. Rowat stated that he is not uncomfortable with having the mayor elected,
but that it seems more ceremonial than substantive in nature. Davidson stated that she
feels there are two different questions here, one being representation of the people by
district. She feels this is totally separate than the mayoral issue. Sueppel stated that he
does not see any advantage of having an elected mayor, and that it would throw a wrench
Charter Review Commission
October 11, 2004
Page 4
into the current process of government in Iowa City. He feels the members need to
review this further, to see if a change such as this would be a benefit. He would like to
hear from previous Council members on this issue too. The issue of leaders was briefly
discussed, with the issue of "strong leaders" being tossed around. Members also
discussed the powers that a mayor should or should not have, as well as political
platforms and how these issues effect the position. (Novick left meeting at 9:25 AM).
The members decided they will revisit this topic again at another meeting, as they have
several issues to decide before they can further TA the Charter.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Chappell moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 AM; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 6 -0 (Green and Novick left meeting early).
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION — PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004 — 7:00 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
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 public hearing to order at 7:00 PM. He briefly reviewed
the steps that the Commission has taken to date including 9 meetings and 17 hours of
discussion. He emphasized to the public that the task of the Commission is to review the
Charter, and to make any appropriate amendments to the City Council. The City
Council's role is to submit these amendments to the people for a vote. He encouraged
input from the public.
PUBLIC INPUT
Garry Klein spoke to the Commission, giving three general statements regarding the
Charter. He feels the Preamble sets the tone of what the Charter ought to be. He touched
on open meetings, and the chance for the public to take part. He suggested an appendix
to the Charter, where ordinances and laws were referenced, and more explanation of
terns. In looking at Article II, he said that it is clear that with growth they also need to
change the districts. Klein went on to say that he feels the mayoral position should be an
elected one. In regards to 2.08, City hiring, he noted that the Police and Fire Chief are
hired by the City Manager. Klein feels the City Council should be part of this process.
Section 2.09 — Klein stated that the wording "may make its own rules" caught his
attention in this section. Under Section 2. 10, he asked what the state law is in regards to
this, and said having that state law would help the average citizen understand the Charter
better.
Bob Elliott, current Council Member, spoke on the issue of the number of council
members and districts. He stated that the at -large seats are very important, and he feels
they should continue to form the majority of the representation. He thanked the Charter
Review Commission for the fine job they are doing thus far.
Klein returned to the podium to speak. He spoke next about Section 4.02 — Conflict of
Interest — stating that there is nothing in the Charter about there being no compensation
other than that provided by the City. Section 4.04 B.2. — he feels this should be made
clearer. Next he discussed 5.01, which deals with the formation of commissions, task
forces, workgroups, etc., and stated that he feels there should be a better than majority
reason to disband a group. He suggests adding "with 2 /3rds of the Council's approval
(5/7) to change or disband.......," stating that they should enlarge the definition to
encompass all of these various groups.
Charter Review Commission
October 12, 2004
Page 2
Klein went on to mentioned Section 7.01 A.1, stating that as a point of clarity, the
wording should be changed, but lie did not have a good replacement. 7.01. B. 1. g. — he
asked to add the words "except City Council, Mayor, City Manager, and other elected
officials'; as this section has to do with salaries. He stated that he feels at the city level
there should be more control over this, and the voters should have a say as to elected
officials getting raises. Under section 7.01 B. 1. j, he suggests the wording, "except for
in the case of things that would be protected by state or federal law." 7.03 A — lie stated
he has some trouble with this one due to the requirement of being a qualified voter. He
states it should say "eligible voters" as they should still be able to partake in the petition
process. 7.05 A — "similar in substance" — Klein asked what this means exactly. Under
7.06 A, Klein said this section is unclear, and he used the municipal electric issue as an
example. Dilkes explained to him that this referendum type is not the referendum under
the Charter but is a franchise issue covered by state law. Lastly, section 8.02 — formation
of commissions — Klein asked how commissions are selected, using the Charter Review
Commission as an example. Sueppel explained the reverse referendum process to Klein.
Again, Dilkes noted that many of these issues are covered by state code. Klein wrapped
up his presentation asking why the Charter Review is done every ten years, instead of
yearly. He stated that with the growth in Iowa City, a review done more often would be
beneficial. Sueppel explained that the Charter can be amended at any time, and that it is
J ust the Commission that meets every ten years for a review process.
Sueppel reminded the public that there will be at least five more meetings, starting at 7:00
AM and running through 9:30 AM, and he suggested that the public either attend those
meetings, or send written concerns to the Commission. There will also be another public
hearing in the near future.
Karr asked for a motion to accept correspondence.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept correspondence from Rod Sullivan; seconded
by Rowat. Motion carried 9 -0.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Novick moved to adjourn; Green seconded. Motion carried 9 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.
CM 8
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick,
Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left at 8:45 AM), Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing,
William Sueppel, Chair
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:03 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES
None.
The Commission members briefly discussed "10 Years of District Elections" spreadsheet
prepared by the City Clerk (at the request of the Chair) to show outcome of district
primaries; and the outcome of district general elections broken down within the district
and citywide.
REVIEW OF PUBLIC INPUT AT OCTOBER 12 PUBLIC HEARING
Sueppel stated that he was somewhat disappointed at the turnout at last night's public
hearing. The "transparency" issue of the Charter was discussed, and Sueppel suggested
that the City Council may wish to direct the City Attorney to prepare an explanation of
the Charter, and where the various sections come from, by referencing State Code, etc.
They could then have this explanation available along with the Charter. The members
discussed various issues, such as an appendix to the Charter, and whether they should
pursue a more annotated version of the Charter. Sueppel suggested there be a "Citizen's
Guide to the Iowa City Charter," where a citizen's group would sit down and prepare a
guide to help the general public understand the City Charter. Dilkes stated that she would
be more comfortable having the City Attorney's office work on this guide, although
citizen input would be very helpful in creating such a guide.
Kubby's handout to the members of "A Community Process" was discussed next.
Sueppel asked how the members wanted to handle this. Karr stated that if the members
plan to make Kubby's proposal part of the next public hearing, then they need to
publicize differently. It was decided that Kubby's proposal would be added to the
October 20'h meeting agenda and discussed at that time.
REVIEW CHARTER
Sueppel noted that the members have received Dilkes' red -lined version of the Charter.
The discussion picked up with Section 2.01 Composition. Sueppel stated that since they
Charter Review Commission
October 13, 2004
Page 2
still have issues with the at -large versus district representation, and the issue of how they
are elected, as well as how the mayoral seat is chosen, they would move on to Section
2.02 Division into council districts. Chappell stated that he feels they should wait until
they have the actual language, so as to eliminate any confusion. Section 2.03 Eligibility
had one change, using "an eligible elector" instead of "a domiciliary."
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA 2.03 Eligibility as written; seconded by Lensing.
Motion carried 9 -0.
The discussion turned to Section 2.04 Terms. Sueppel asked if anyone felt there should
be any changes to this section. It was noted that if there were any amendments to the
composition of the City Council, then there could also be a change in this section.
However, it was felt that "terms" should be left as is for now.
MOTION: Novick moved to TA 2.04 Terms as written; Lensing seconded. Motion
carried 9 -0.
Section 2.05 Compensation — It was noted that this topic was mentioned in a letter the
Commission received from Rod Sullivan. Sueppel asked if anyone was interested in
discussing full -time positions for the Council members, and no one indicated an interest.
Davidsen noted that she would like to see Section 2.05 changed into two separate
sentences, with the first sentence ending with, "...the Mayor and the other Council
members." The word "and" would be removed, and the second sentence would start,
"The Council shall not adopt such..."
MOTION: Davidsen proved to eliminate the "," and remove the word "and ",
starting a second sentence as noted above; seconded by Novick. Motion carried 9 -0.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA 2.05 Compensation as amended; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 9 -0.
Section 2.06 Mayor — discussion turned to the next section, and it was noted that this
section would involve more lengthy discussions. From the public comments received
thus far, it was noted that there is an interest in looking into having a directly elected
mayor. Discussion centered on leadership, and how the members view this position of
leadership; whether or not this position should be elected by the citizens or by the other
Council members; and whether the process of election would change who runs for the
seat. Lensing brought up experience, and stated that if they changed the process, it could
open the door for less experienced people. Kubby stated that she feels the electorate
should have a more direct voice in who becomes mayor. Sueppel stated that in looking at
the history of the City's mayors, most times the person selected was one who tended to
be a leader anyway. Sueppel noted that any changes to this process would encompass
huge changes for the City, and the members need to keep this in mind. Chappell noted
that there is the perception that it is more democratic to have a directly elected mayor.
Charter Review Commission
October 13, 2004
Page 3
Kubby stated that she has heard several in the community discuss a directly elected
mayor, and she would be interested in considering this as well. Davidsen stated that she
sees that it is the activists in the community that are interested in this type of change, not
the masses, and that it's an ever changing discussion. (TAPE ENDS) Rowat stated that
he is concerned about the logistics and experience issue when it comes to a directly
elected mayor. He feels that there needs to be some type of educational or learning curve
that a person would need in order to lead the city. Davidsen stated that she wanted to
reiterate that the current form of government in Iowa City is working, and working well.
She noted that the Council members are directly elected, and she gave some history on
the City's government. Sueppel stated that many positions within the City used to be
elected positions, but that was changed about fifty years ago, as there were inherent
problems with this. He further noted that the City is a Chatter form of govermnent, not a
City Manager form of government, but that we do use a mix of both forms. Chappell
noted that if you look back to about thirty years ago, the original Charter Commission
had lengthy discussions about the same issue of whether the mayor should be directly
elected or not. The reasons given back then included that if you had an elected mayor,
that position and the City Manger position would be at odds with each other. Novick
noted that Coralville has an independently elected mayor, and also a professional City
Manager, and she asked the members to think about whether or not this works well.
Sueppel noted that they have a different form of government in Coralville. Novick stated
that site feels they should move on in their discussions, and reconsider this section next
week. Green stated that he feels they should address this issue first, as future decisions
will hinge upon their decision here. Werner noted that he questions term limits, and
asked if other members were interested in this discussion. Lensing suggested that the
Commission publicize a decision on this issue, as this would cause some reaction in the
public, which would then bring in more public input. Sueppel asked the members to state
if they want to leave 2.06 Mayor as is, or entertain a change to have the mayor elected by
the people. Chappell stated lie would be interested in change; Novick stated she prefers
to leave it as is; Lensing stated she would keep it as is, and wants to encourage more
discussion; Green stated he would keep it as is, but that he is open to change; Sueppel
noted he would stay as is; Werner would also keep it as is; Kubby noted she would be
interested in change; Davidsen stated she would keep it as is, but is open to change; and
Rowat also would keep it as is, but is open to change also. The members agreed that
more public input is needed and must be encouraged.
The discussion turned to term limits, and Kubby asked if anyone wanted to discuss this
issue. It was noted that the current mayor, Ernie Lehman, is. on his fourth tern. Karr
recalled two others have had three terms each, in regards to the mayoral seat. No further
interest was shown on this topic, so the Chair opted to move on.
Section 2.07 General Powers and Duties — Sueppel noted that Garry Klein at the public
hearing the previous evening had questioned this section. Dilkes rioted that the initiative
and referendum section is a good example of why this wording is needed, and Sueppel
agreed.
Charter Review Commission
October 13, 2004
Page 4
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 2.07; seconded by Chappell. Motion
carried 9 -0.
Section 2.08 Appointments — Green started the conversation with the topic of the Police
Chief being elected by the Council, stating that this is the section that would go under. It
was also noted that Garry Klein had noted both the Police and Fire Chiefs should be hired
this way. Novick mentioned a public security position, and whether the City should
consider such a position. Sueppel started reading Section 2.08, noting that subsections A,
B, C, and D all seem to be fine as is. He questioned the second section of E, where it
talks about job - related criteria. He feels this should be a subsection of its own. Sueppel
then asked if anyone wanted to discuss the appointment of the Police Chief; and Kubby
stated that she feels they should have a discussion about it. She questions why this
department is different from other city departments that provide a service. Dilkes noted
that these positions are subject to the civil service testing process. Discussion continued
among the members, with several giving their view of whether or not the Police and Fire
Chief positions should be appointed by the Council, or by the City Manager. Karr
reminded the Commission that the City Manager is available to attend one of their
meetings, if they would like to discuss any of these issues with him. (TAPE ENDS)
Kubby asked what kind of effects would take place internally, asking if it would raise
tensions within departments, or cause any problems. hn response to Kubby, Karr noted
that a worse case scenario would be that the Chiefs would have two bosses, so to speak.
Chappell asked if it would cause a negative change, or any legal changes. The discussion
ended with members deciding to continue this issue at the next Charter Review meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Sueppel noted that he will not be able to make the October 20°i meeting as he will be out
of town. He and Karr discussed setting him up for a telephone conference. Green left the
meeting at 8:45.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 AM; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green left meeting early).
Marian Karr
prom: Garry and Betsy Klein [the3rdiowa @mchsi.com]
ant: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:17 AM
ro: citycharter @iowa- city.org
Subject: Recommendations for the City Charter Commission
on
City Charter
Review.doc
Members of the Chart Review Commission,
I appreciated the opportunity to address you last night. As you
suggested, attached are my recommendations for the city charter. The
viewpoint I come from is one of a consumer of government services.
Transparency in the Charter is paramount to transparency in city
governance. Citizens should not see government participation as a
daunting task, but as I learned last night it takes a wealth of
information to understand the intricacies.
Garry Klein
628 2nd Ave.
Iowa City, IA 52245
* ** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content * **
* ** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders * **
1
Charter Review Recommendations
Garry Klein
6282 "d Ave.
City Charter Review
The City Charter preamble does a good job of setting the tone of what the charter ought to be. The only
addition I would suggest is:
The Charter of Iowa City will skive to provide transparency in the democratic process that is governance.
Citizens should be able to understand and easily access public information and be able to follow the process
of governance. All open meetings should provide the public an opportunity to provide input.
Generally: where ordinances and state laws are invoked, the charter should have the relevant portions
included in the document (may be appendicized).
Also, legal terms like "home rule" , domiciliary should be added to definitions for laypersons
Article 2 City Council:
1.) Iowa City grows, it is clear that representation has to shift as well. Tire current charter is vague as to
when council members districts enlarge because there is not a set percentage of population the council
district serves. The charter should allow for either enlarging districts or adding additional districts.
While adding council members is more expensive, it is fair to say that the citizens would be better
served by a council that understands their concerns and represents their viewpoint.
2.) 2.02 The city should be divided into 6 districts and should have the same rules for petitioning, etc. At
large districts imply that there are people not being represented by districts. If this is true, then districts
need to be added, If false, why would at large council districts need to exist at all?
3.) 2.06.B: The mayor's position by the wording of the charter extends powers to the mayor that other
council members do not hold. As the person who represents the citizens of Iowa City, it would seem
appropriate that the position be decided by the qualified electorate rather than by the Council.
4.) 2.08: What about Public Safety Chiefs, City Onnbudspersoi ✓Civil Right/ Human Rights Coordinator
shouldn't these positions be have input by council?
5.) Section 2.09 very vague: needs transparency
6.) 2.10 What is the sate law, include it here.
7.) Election. In lieu of a elongated election season, which is expensive, election races should consider
incorporating instant innoff to decide who serves on council.
8.) Section 4.02: Conflict of Interest: The city manager will engage in no activities that she/he receives
direct financial compensation or benefit based on her/his employment with the city.
9.) Section 4.04 B.2: Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs of any department or the
conduct of any employee under the supervision of the City Manager except in the case where there is a
direct conflict of interest (e.g., suspected wrong -doing involving the City Manager). In this instance,
the County Attorney's office will intervene.
10.) Section 5.01 Add "with 2/3 of Council's approval" to change or disband a commission/workgroup or
taskforce.
11.) Section 7.0I.A.1: Define how initiative can be presented to the council. The wording is vague.
12.) Section 7.01 A.2 : Define how initiative can be presented to the council. The wording is vague.
13.) Section 7.0.1.B.l.g: except City Council, Mayor, City Manager and other elected officials
Charter Review Recommendations
Garry Klein
6282 d Ave.
14.) Section 7.0.I.B.I.j: except or protected by state or federal law"
15.) Section 7.03.A "must be signed by eligible electors" because a petitioner is not registered to vote
should not disqualify them from participating in petitioning.
16.) 7.05.A "similar in substance" needs clearer definition.
17.) 7.0.6.A. If conflicting ordinances are approved..." This is a sticky point. The municipal electricity
referendum items are examples of when this point could be used. Is it clear to the average voter that
this is in the charter? I hadn't heard or seen it before reviewing it for tonight. It lacks transparency.
18.) Section 8.02: Where is the transparency as to how this commission is selected, the qualifications of the
membership, how many members it should have, defined public input into the process, input as to why
members should/shouldn't serve /conflict of interest Also, all changes to the charter should be approved
by voters. By allowing the city to amend the charter by ordinance, it esentially gives the power of
changing the ordinance to the Council rather than the electorate, who conceivably will affected by the
changes up to at least 10 years after the charter is amended.
w-4
�t- ��uPSle� G y
r1ler�i�rr /I/U(ll c k
Population of Johnson County Municipalities
(Incorporated Places)
Coralville 6,130
7,687
10,347
15,123
North Liberty 1,055
2,046
2,926
5,367'
Oxford 666
676
663
705
Hills 507
547
662
679
Lone Tree 834
1,040
979
1,151
Solon 837
969
1,050
1,177
Swisher 417
654
645
813
Shueyville 154
287
223
250
Tiffin 299
413
460
975
University Heights 1,265
1,069
1,042
987
Johnson County Incorporated 59,014
65,896
78,735
89,447
Johnson County Unincorporated 13,113
15,821
17,384
21,559
Johnson County Total 72,127
81,717
96,119
111,006
' The 2000 Census official population count for Iowa City is 63,027.
Though the Census Bureau did revise the
total
population count figure, it did not revise any of the subtotal figures (population by race, by age, by tract, etc.).
The
population figure for Iowa City throughout the Community Profile is 62,220 because the
sum of all subtotals equals 62,220.
2 North Liberty conducted a recent census showing a population of 7,224 as of
April 2004.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of Population, 1990 & 2000.
On December 6, 2001
the Census Bureau issued an official statement revising the total population count for Iowa City.
20 Iowa City Community Profile 2004