HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-2004 Chrter Review CommissionCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
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
October 26, 2004 PACKET
CR40 Agenda 10 -26
CR41 Minutes of October 20
CR42 Memorandum from City Clerk re Publicity
CR43 Agenda for 10 -27
I r
-r..U&_ —"w4c
CITY OF IOWA CITY
41 0 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
(319) 3S6 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION www.icgov.org
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Harvat Hall, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
3:00 -5:00 PM
1. Approve Minutes
2. Public Comment
3. Review Charter
4. Meeting Schedule
October 27 (7:00 -9:30 AM; City Hall / Harvat Hall)
November 1 (3:00 -5:00 PM; City Hall / Harvat Hall)
November 8 (7:00 -9:30 AM; City Hall /Lobby Conference Room)
November 9 (3:00 -5:30 PM; City Hall / Harvat Hall)
November 16 (3:00 -5:00 PM; City Hall /City Manager's Conference Room)
November 22 (7:00- 9:30AM; City Hall / Harvat Hall)
December 1 (public input session; 5:30 PM; Library)
5. December 1 Input Session
Community Process Proposal
Publicity /Getting the word
Direct Mail
Guest Editorial
6 Old Business
7. Adjournment (5:00 PM)
MINUTES DRAFT
CIIAItTERREVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 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, Co-
Chair; with William Sueppel, Chair (via teleconference)
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Co- Chairperson Lensing called the meeting to order at 7:03 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11. 12 and 13.2004
Lensing asked if anyone had any corrections or revisions to the minutes from the past
three meetings. Kubby stated that on page 2, under "Review Charter," she is questioning
the sentence that reads: Members showed an interest in discussing the City Manager and
Police Chief positions. Kubby felt that this implies that the members were interested in
discussing the City Manager as it related to the potential amendments, and stated she
would like to remove "City Manager and" from this sentence. Novick noted that on page
one, where she and Davidsen were talking about the League of Women Voters, the
addition of the word "not" is needed after and (... and not speaking for the League.)
Sueppel noted that on page three, under Article 2, it shows that the members made a
motion approving all of Section 2.01 Composition. He stated that the only thing agreed
upon was to keep the Council at seven members. The four /three arrangement of districts
was yet to be decided, as is the issue of district representatives being elected at- large. It
was suggested the wording be clarified to show TA to Section 2.01 Composition
referring to the seven members. Members were in agreement with these revisions.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the October 11, 2004, minutes as amended;
seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 9 -0.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the October 12, 2004, minutes as written;
seconded by Green. Motion carried 9 -0.
Kubby asked for clarification on page two, under Section 2.05 Compensation, where a
letter from Rod Sullivan was mentioned. Sueppel noted that on page two, at the top,
under a motion by Kubby, it states, "as written' ' and he is suggesting it state "as
amended." It was pointed out that "as written" refers to the redline version of the Charter
distributed by the City Attorney. Kubby stated on page four, 9`h line where it states, "She
questions why this..." should read as, "She stated why this..."
MOTION: Green moved to accept the October 13, 2004, minutes as amended;
seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 9 -0.
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept correspondence from Garry Klein; seconded by
Chappell. Motion carried 9 -0.
COMMUNITY PROCESS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY MEMBER KUBBY
Kubby started the discussion by saying that she is not particularly attached to the
specifics of how a public process, such as the one she is proposing is run, but that she
does feel that on the most discussed issues that they've had so far, they need to have
some more in -depth conversation with "interested community members." She feels this
will help the Commission move forward on some of the more difficult issues, and will
spark some interest in the community. The discussion turned towards advertising, and
the best way to get this type of public process broadcast to the public. Suggestions of
following up with the media outlets to see if they could do a story, or with certain civic
groups to get more input, were made. Davidsen suggested they invite specific groups,
those with an interest in civic matters. Karr explained the five -week cycle of water bills,
and the timeframe needed to get an ad printed and ready to go. Discussion continued
with members asking Kubby about her proposal, and stating how they would proceed
with the next public hearing. Kubby asked for the members' agreement that they will
have a "highly interactive" public input at the December 1 meeting. With the target date
of December I for an "interactive" public hearing, the members decided to set up more
meeting dates between now and the end of November, as well as December dates, in
order to prepare for this type of process.
MEETING SCHEDULE
The following meeting dates and times were agreed upon by the members:
Tuesday, October 26 from 3 -5PM (October 27tt' already scheduled) (TAPE ENDS)
Monday, November 1 from 3 -5PM (November 8'h & 22 "a already scheduled)
Tuesday, November 9 from 3 -5:30 PM
Tuesday, November 16 from 3 -5PM
Lensing asked that Kann add Kubby's "Community Process Proposal" to the agenda of
the October 26 meeting, as well as ideas for promoting this kind of public hearing.
REVIEW CHARTER (Based on 10/12 redlined version submitted by City Attorney)
Discussion began with 2.08 Appointments. The members started a discussion on this
section at the last meeting, and the issue still being discussed is the appointment of the
Police Chief by the City Council. Members questioned the process as it is currently
done, and what the ramifications would be if the Council did appoint the Police Chief.
Davidsen questioned the members on why this issue was being pushed, and whether any
of them have heard of any dissatisfaction with the current process. Lensing asked how
other communities appoint their Police Chief, and Sueppel outlined the options and
history. The civil service process was also discussed, and how the City uses these tests to
obtain candidates for the Police Chief position. Questions of accountability and
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 3
supervision, as well as termination issues, were further discussed by the members. After
much discussion, members were asked to indicate if they wanted to pursue this change.
The majority of the members stated they did not want to change the appointment process
of the Police Chief. Therefore, it was decided to keep the process as it is now, which is
appointment by the City Manager, with approval by the City Council. Language to this
effect will be drafted by Dilkes. (TAPE ENDS) The idea of an ombudsman was briefly
discussed, with the majority of the members stating they did not feel it appropriate for
Charter Review discussion. It was stated that the termination process, and any language
change relating to this, is under Section 4.04.
MOTION: Chappell moved to keep the Police Chief appointment with the city
manager, and to have the City Attorney draft the language "with the consent of the
City Council." Motion seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 7 -1. Sueppel voting in
the negative, and Green absent.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA (temporarily approve) Section 2.08 A through E;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 2.09 Rules; records — Co -Chair Lensing asked members if they had any
discussion on this section.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.09 as written; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 2.10 Vacancies — Members had no discussion or changes to this section.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.10 as written; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 2.11 Council action — a brief discussion was held on why Dilkes removed B.
from this section. She explained to the members that this section is no longer considered
necessary due to legal changes.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 2.11 as amended by Dilkes; seconded by
Novick. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Novick gave the members a handout on population numbers that she had asked Karr to
prepare. She asked that Karr send this information on to Sueppel and Green, as well, and
that members review this for discussion later. This information is in regards to the
possibility of changing districts within the city.
Section 2.12 Prohibitions — Kubby started the discussion by asking for clarification of
B, in light of the change made in the language in 2.08. Chappell suggested they add the
language, "except as otherwise provided herein." to address this. The discussion
continued on each specific paragraph in this section, and members agreed to have Dilkes
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 4
draft language for B and C, with the clarification being needed due to the Police Chief
appointment change in 2.08 and the approval by the City Council, and how this effects
their participation in this process.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.12A; Rowat seconded. Motion carried
8 -0 (Green absent).
Dilkes asked the members if they would like a revised edition of the Charter now, or if
they would like to wait until they have gone through the Charter this second time.
Members agreed that they would like to wait until they have gone through the entire
review process again.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 AM; seconded by
Chappell. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
A
at
DATE: October 21, 2004
TO: Charter Review Comnussion / ��
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk PN
RE: Publicity
I am offering the following publicity suggestions my office has used for various events:
• Display ads in newspapers
• Posters in City buildings and on buses
• Utility bills (4 week cycle to cover everyone)
• Handouts at the information desk of City Hall and Public Library
• Press Release
• City website
• Cable Television notices
• Radio programs such as Dottie Ray
• Booths at business fairs, other large public gatherings
• Neighborhood outreach public meetings
• Speaking at service club meetings
S: chartemviewcommission /publicity.doc
on
����,2 it
I r i L G
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
(3 19) 356 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION www.icgov.org
MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Harvat Hall, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
7:00 -9:30 AM
1. Approve Minutes
2. Public Comment
3. Review Charter
4. Meeting Schedule
November 1 (3:00 -5:00 PM; City Hall / Harvat Hall)
November 8 (7:00 -9:30 AM; City Hall /Lobby Conference Room)
November 9 (3:00 -5:30 PM; City Hall / Harvat Hall)
November 16 (3:00 -5:00 PM; City Hall /City Manager's Conference Room)
November 22(7:00- 9:30AM; City Hall / Harvat Hall)
December 1 (public input session; 5:30 PM; Library)
5. December 1 Input Session
Community Process Proposal
Publicity /Getting the word
Direct Mail
Guest Editorial
6 Old Business
7. Adjournment (9:30 AM)
Date: October 27, 2004
To: Charter Review Commission
From: Ernie Lehman, Mayor ✓'
Re: Review — Mayoral Selection
Having served on the Council for eleven years, seven of those as mayor, I have a few thoughts
relative to the charter, which I hope you will find helpful.
Relative to the selection of mayor, I am convinced the present system works very well for
several reasons. First, it is imperative that the mayor be able to work with the rest of the council
in a fashion that brings them together as much as is possible. The councilpersons are better
able to make that assessment because they can sense the chemistry among themselves. The
mayor can play an important role in facilitating council participation.
Second, I believe that in order to be effective, the mayor must have a working knowledge of City
business, the sense of the council and a relationship with City administrators. It is very unlikely
that a council would select a mayor who has not had at least two years of experience on the
council. This experience is invaluable to the person serving as mayor. I believe that almost
anyone who has served on the council will attest to the fact that the first year is a learning
experience and it is only with experience that they become effective. This experience is
particularly important for the mayor.
Third, if the mayor were to be elected at large, it is fair to assume that there would be at last two
good candidates for the office. It would be particularly disappointing to see one of these people
not be able to serve the city by reason of a defeat in the race for mayor. In the present system,
both could run at large and the city could conceivably benefit by the election of both.
I understand that there has been some discussion of a 4`h district with the total number of
council people remaining at seven. I believe the present system serves us well. Our districts
are represented by candidates selected from within the district, while the majority of the council
is both selected and elected at large. The best interest of the city, in my opinion, is served by
council people who make decisions based on the overall best interest of the entire city, while
being sensitive to the interests of the districts. I believe this is being done.quite well.
Although I find the election of district councilpersons a little confusing, i.e. being elected by the
entire city, I find the results quite effective. The present system ensures that each district will be
represented by a person from that district. Being elected by the entire city also ensures that the
district representative has an appreciation for larger issues that affect the entire city.
I also understand that there has been some discussion relative to "qualified" as opposed to
"eligible" voters. People show their civic responsibility by registering to vote. Those who have
enough interest in the operation of their government and truly wish to make a difference, in fact,
register to vote. Aren't these the voices that should be heard? The act of registering to vote
shows a real interest in government and gives the voter a voice in all aspects of governance.
Using qualified voters as a standard is unfair to those people who genuinely care about
government.
Counci0diaderl 0 -25.do
Date: October 26, 2004
To: Charter Review Commission ¢J
From: �r ie Lehman, Mayor l
Re: Revie — Mayoral Selection
Having served on the ouncil for eleven years, seven /Jeto ayor, I have a few thoughts
relative to the charter, w ich I hope you will find helpfu
Relative to the selection of ayor, I am convinced ystem works very well for
several reasons. First, it is imp ative that the mayor k with the rest of the council
in a fashion that bringsthem t2 ther as much as ie councilpersons are better
able to make that assessment bec use they can seq try among themselves. The
mayor can play an important role in f Filitating council participation.
Second, I believe that in order to be effect
business, the sense of the council and a
that a council would select a mayor who
council. This experience is invaluable to
anyone who has served on the council
experience and it is only with experier
particularly important for the mayor.
the/mayor must have a working knowledge of City
li ship with City administrators. It is very unlikely
ot had at least two years of experience on the
O @@rson serving as mayor. I believe that almost
atte'!5t to the fact that the first year is a learning
that tvey become effective. This experience is
Third, if the mayor were to be elected/ht large, it is fair to Nsume that there would be at last two
good candidates for the office. It wo Id be particularly disa ointing to see one of these people
not be able to serve the city by re on of a defeat in the rac for mayor. In the present system,
both could run at large and the cit could conceivably benefit b the election of both.
I understand that there has b en some discussion of a 4`h disZ ict with the total number of
council people remaining at s ven. I believe the present system ryes us well. Our districts
are represented by candidat selected from within the district, while he majority of the council
is both selected and elected/at large. The best interest of the city, in y opinion, is served by
council people who make Oecisions based on the overall best interest ',9f the entire city, while
being sensitive to the inter fists of the districts. I believe this is being done kpite well.
Although I find the elect 6n of district councilpersons a little confusing, i.e. b ing elected by the
entire city, 1 find the re Its quite effective. The present system ensures that e ch district will be
represented by a pers4 n from that district. Being elected by the entire city also ensures that the
district representative as an appreciation for larger issues that affect the entire city.
I also understand tj at there has been some discussion relative to "qualified" as opposed to
"registered" voters./People show their civic responsibility by registering to vote. Those who have (
enough interest in he operation of their government and truly wish to make a difference, in fact,
register to vote. Aren't these the voices that should be heard? The act of registering to vote
shows a real interest in government and gives the voter a voice in all aspects of governance.
Using qualified voters as a standard is unfair to those people who genuinely care about
government.
CouOClhdlarlerl 0- 2$.doc
RE: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CHARTER
This Memorandum addresses the legal bases for some of the proposed changes that are shown on the
red -lined version of the Charter provided to you under cover of October 12, 2004.
Section 2.11 -Council Action
A. Section 2.11(A) provides that passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution "requires an
affirmative vote of a majority of the Councilmembers except as otherwise provided by State
law". State law was amended in 1997 to provide that passage of an ordinance, amendment or
resolution "requires a majority vote of all the members of the Council ". Iowa Code Section
380.4 (2003). "All members of the Council" refers to all seats, except in the case of absence for
a conflict of interest. Id. It is my opinion that a majority of "council members" is the same as a
majority of "members of the Council ". Both refer to a majority of the members of the Council as
opposed to a majority of the Council, which is interpreted to mean a majority of the quorum.
See City of Hiawatha v. Regional Planning Commission of Linn County, 267 N.W. 2d 31 (Iowa
1978) (holding that a "majority vote of the planning commission" authorized decisions to be
made by a majority of a quorum of commission members and noting that designating a
proportion of "the members" of the particular body is the usual way in which a legislature
expresses its intention that decisions of the body be made by the designated proportion of the
whole membership.) While an amendment to Section 2.11(A) to mirror state law would be
acceptable, I do not think it is necessary.
B. Section 364.3 of the Iowa Code provides that the "city council shall exercise a power only by the
passage of a motion, a resolution, an amendment, or an ordinance." The State Code does not
authorize the Council to submit a measure to the binding vote of the electorate. While City of
Clinton v. Sheridan, 530 N.W. 2d 690 (Iowa 1995) held that Clinton's initiative and referendum
provision were not inconsistent with the state statutes that placed limits on how the City Council
exercised its powers, in doing so the Court relied partially on the distinction between the
governing body submitting a question to popular vote and the submission of a question to voters
upon citizen initiative and referendum. Id. At 693. In my opinion the provision at 2.11(B) of the
Charter which allows the Council to poll the citizens is inconsistent with state law provisions
regarding City legislation. I note also that in 1997 the state legislature adopted an amendment
to Chapter 39 stating that only those elections authorized by state law were authorized but
exempting ordinances providing for elections on matters under a city's jurisdiction. See House
File 636, Laws of the 77th G.A. This law was repealed in 1998. (H.F. 2495, 77t' G.A. 1998)
Section 5.02 - Appointment: removal
Section 5.02 provides that removal of members shall be consistent with State law but also provides that
removal must be for "just cause ". Section 372.15 of the Code of Iowa provides: "[e]xcept as otherwise
provided by state or city law, all persons appointed to City office may be removed by the officer or body
making the appointment, but every such removal shall be by written order. The order shall give the
reasons, be filed in the office of the City Clerk, and a copy shall be sent by certified mail to the person
removed who, upon request.... shall be granted a public hearing before the Council on all issues
connected with the removal." Thus, unless City law provides otherwise, State law requires that the
Council give its reasons for the removal and provide a public hearing to the person removed. Council,
to date, has not established general conditions which constitute "just cause ", but rather has followed
state procedure in connection with removals. The proposed amendment reflects this practice. The
Charter Commission could, however, choose to adopt standards and procedures other than those
found in state law.
Section 6.03 — Definition
The question was raised whether the donation of personal time by a professional is a
"contribution ". The definition of "contribution" in City Code Section 1 -9 -2A is the same as the definition
in the campaign finance provisions of the State Code. See Iowa Code Section 56.2(10). A person's
volunteer time can be a "contribution" if it is provided on a collective basis by, for example, a business,
trade organization, or union. Thus, the distinction is between individual vs. organized efforts and not on
whether the person is donating professional time. (e.g. lawyer leaf- letting vs. lawyer providing legal
advice). Given that Section 6.02 of the Charter makes separate city disclosure requirements optional
and the City currently relies on the State's required disclosures for enforcement, the term "contribution"
should be defined as it is in state law.
Section 7.04C - Procedure after filing.
The City cannot confer jurisdiction on the district court. Molitor v. City of Cedar Rapids, 360 N.W.2d
568, 569 (Iowa 1985). By that I mean a City cannot authorize a judge to hear a certain type of case
that state law does not authorize the judge to hear. Because state law does not allow for "judicial
review" of Council's decision regarding the sufficiency of a petition, the charter cannot so provide as it
presently does. The petitioners still have a legal remedy. They can file a lawsuit called a "petition for
writ of certiorari." They just cannot file a "petition for judicial review."
Section 8.01 - Charter amendments
A ballot question on a charter amendment is "special" because it is not for the purpose of electing
council members (a regular city election). Under state law a special city election may be held at the
time of a regular city election or a general election as long as precinct boundaries are the same. See
Iowa Code Sections 39.2(1) and 39.2(2). By adding "special," the Charter provision will be consistent
with state law, allowing the question to be placed on the ballot at a general election. I have also made
changes to Section 8.01 to make it clear that the petition requirements are a function of state law.
Cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk
sue /okmem o /emdchtcom m.d oc
J)1 "3 -t le' /(
To:
Charter Review Commission
From:
Karen Kubby
Regarding:
Different voting systems
Date:
October 23, 2004
Attached is a summary of my research on various voting systems used in the United
States and across the globe. My motivation to look at voting systems is to find a more
democratic way to tally votes in Iowa City for city council elections. Our current system,
plurality voting, allows for someone to get less then 50% of the vote in a primary and still
win in the general election. When fewer than 30% of qualified voters in Iowa City vote
in city council elections, it is important to me that winners get at least 50% of those votes
cast if they are to be declared a winner.
I am also interested in eliminating primaries, so as to reduce costs and to decrease the
amount of money candidates need to raise and can raise (limits are per election, so people
can raise a maximum from each contributor for both the primary and the general).
Because the winners in our at -large elections are the two top vote getters, it makes it
more difficult to pick one type of alternative voting system that will work both for our at-
large and district elections (no matter how we define district elections). I asked the
Center for Voting and Democracy to recommend one system that might work in both
circumstances. They could not, as our system is not standard between the at -large and
district voting mechanisms. CVD recommended that Choice Voting would work best for
our at -large races and Instant Run -off Voting for our district races (this will only work if
we have only district voters vote in the district races).
My concern was that two voting systems would lead to the need for a lot of voter
education, which I want to avoid (the reason I am in favor of making the districts "pure ").
CVD stated, that from the voter's perspective, the voting framework is the same —that
they rank candidates according to preference. It is how the votes are counted that is
different.
Below is information from CVD on various voting systems and details about Choice
Voting and Instant Run -off Voting. I know it's a lot of information, but felt this was the
minimum I could provide to promote a fair and thorough discussion on alternative voting
systems. Thanks in advance for reading this information.
TYPES OF VOTING SYSTEMS
Based on information from the Center for Voting and Democracy
www.fairvote.or
summarized by Karen Kubby
Plurality voting is also called "winner- take -all ". These types of systems are used
most extensively in the United States. Looking at the voting results for a theoretical
government that is divided into 10 equal precincts with four candidates, the unfairness of
these systems is displayed:
If this were an Iowa City district primary election, Weber would win each precinct and go
on to the general election along with Herky —both with fewer than 30% of ballots cast in
this district Weber. Neither candidate in that district will have a mandate from the voters.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a winner- take -all system that can be used in the
election of a single candidate. A candidate must have a majority of support in order
to win. This system eliminated the need and expense of a primary election. Voters
rank their preferences instead of voting for one candidate. By ranking candidates, the
winner may not e the candidate with the most first ranking (unless the first ranking make-
up a majority of the vote). As a voter may identify a less well known candidate as their
first choice, but that candidate comes in last, the second choice of those voters are added
to the remaining candidates. This process continues until one candidate has a clear
majority of votes. This insures majority support for the winning candidate and gives
people a chance to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of allowing the great -of-
two -evils to win with a simple plurality.
An illustration of this process is below, taken from a powerpoint presentation about IRV
by Deborah Markowitz, Vermont Secretary of State. The full presentation with all Ms.
Markowitz's notes can be found on the website sited above.
Candidate's Name
Precincts
Weber
Herky
Don't
Believe in
Government
Know it All
Total
1
291
286
255
168
1,000
2
301
277
215
207
1,000
3
295
290
225
190
1,000
4
305
299
245
151
1,000
5
286
279
210
1 225
1,000
6
294
284
235
187
1,000
7
310
275
212
203
1,000
8
298
293
243
166
1,000
9
290
280
247
183
1,000
10
302
281
218
199
1,000
Total votes
2,972
2,844
2,305
1,879
10,000
Percent
votes
29.72%
28.44%
23.05%
18.79%
100.00%
If this were an Iowa City district primary election, Weber would win each precinct and go
on to the general election along with Herky —both with fewer than 30% of ballots cast in
this district Weber. Neither candidate in that district will have a mandate from the voters.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a winner- take -all system that can be used in the
election of a single candidate. A candidate must have a majority of support in order
to win. This system eliminated the need and expense of a primary election. Voters
rank their preferences instead of voting for one candidate. By ranking candidates, the
winner may not e the candidate with the most first ranking (unless the first ranking make-
up a majority of the vote). As a voter may identify a less well known candidate as their
first choice, but that candidate comes in last, the second choice of those voters are added
to the remaining candidates. This process continues until one candidate has a clear
majority of votes. This insures majority support for the winning candidate and gives
people a chance to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of allowing the great -of-
two -evils to win with a simple plurality.
An illustration of this process is below, taken from a powerpoint presentation about IRV
by Deborah Markowitz, Vermont Secretary of State. The full presentation with all Ms.
Markowitz's notes can be found on the website sited above.
Voters Vote Their
Preferences
r
3 r.
f PISA
Retally
Ballots
Tally All Ballots
�;(:a�`1
Declare a
hi my theoretical example above, all those who voted for Know it All would have their
second votes redistributed. If one of the three remaining candidates got a majority of the
votes after this second tally, they would be declared the winner. If not, the candidate with
the least number of votes would have their next choice tallied.
San Francisco is utilizing IRV in its November 2004 city elections. On March 2, 2004,
voters in Berkeley (CA) voted 72 % -28% to authorize instant runoff voting (IRV) for city
elections.
Proportional Representation (PR) describes voting systems in which political
parties win legislative seats in proportion to their share of the popular vote. In the above
table, if Weber were a party, the Weber Party would get 30% of the seats in the
govermnental body, while Herky Party would get 28 %, Don't Believe in Government
Party would get 23% and Know It All Party would get 19% of the seats.
A variety of school boards, county commissions, and city councils in Alabama and North
Carolina utilize PR.
Cumulative Voting (CV) is a semi - proportional voting system based on voting for
individual candidates. It promotes better representation of independents and political
minorities. CV requires multi -seat districts. For example, if there is a district represented
by five people, each voter would get five votes. The voter could then distribute those 5
votes in whatever fashion they desire, including giving all votes to one candidate.
Cumulative voting was used to elect the Illinois state legislature from 1870 to 1980. In
recent years it has been used to resolve voting rights cases for city council elections in
Amarillo (TX) and Peoria (IL), for county commission elections in Chilton County (AL)
and for school board elections in Sisseton (SD) and more than fifty other jurisdictions.
Limited Voting (LC) limits the voter to cast fewer votes than the number of seats.
For example, in a race to elect five candidates, votes could be limited to two votes.
Winning candidates obtain the most votes. This prevents the monopoly by a dominant
group.
The city council races in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, PA, Hartford, CT, and
Waterbury, CT, are a few examples of where limited voting occurs.
Choice Voting (STV) (e.g, "single transferable vote" or "preference voting ") is a
form of limited voting in which voters maximize their one vote's effectiveness through
ranking choices. Choice voting is very likely to provide fair results, can be used in both
partisan and non - partisan elections and does not require primaries. It is recommended as
the best system for local government elections.
Choice voting has been used for city council elections in Cambridge (MA) since 1941
and is used for Community School Board elections in New York and for national
elections in Ireland and Australia.
Frequently Asked Questions
About Instant Runoff Voting
What is instant runoff voting? Instant runoff voting is a method of
electing a single winner. It provides an alternative to plurality and runoff
elections. In a plurality election, the highest vote getter wins even if s /he
receives less than 50% of the vote. In a runoff election, two candidates
advance to a runoff if no candidate receives more than 50% in the first
round.
How does it work? Voters rank candidates in order of choice: 1, 2, 3
and so on, It takes a majority to win. If anyone receives a majority of the
first choice votes, that candidate is elected. If not, the last place candidate
is defeated, just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted again,
but this time each ballot cast for the defeated candidate counts for the
next choice candidate listed on the ballot. The process of eliminating the
last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one
candidate receives a majority of the vote. With modern voting equipment,
all of the counting and recounting takes place rapidly and automatically.
IRV acts like a series of runoff elections in which one candidate is
eliminated each election. Each time a candidate is eliminated, all voters
get to choose among the remaining candidates. This continues until one
candidate receives a majority of the vote.
Isn't this too complex for the voter? No. All the voter has to do is rank
one or more candidates. It's like renting a video or picking an ice cream:
What video (or flavor) do you want? That's your first choice. If they don't
have that video (or flavor), what would you like? That's your second
choice. If they don't have that, what's your third pick? That's all there is to
it. It's as easy as 1 -2 -3.
Doesn't this give extra votes to supporters of defeated candidates?
No. In each round, every voter's ballot counts for exactly one candidate. In
this respect, it's just like a two -round runoff election. You vote for your
favorite candidate in the first round. If your candidate advances to the
second round, you keep supporting that candidate. If not, you get to pick
among the remaining candidates. In IRV candidates gets eliminated one
at a time, and each time, all voters get to select among the remaining
candidates. At each step of the ballot counting, every voter has exactly
one vote for a continuing candidate. That's why the Courts have upheld
the constitutionality of IRV.
Does IRV eliminate "spoilers" and vote - splitting? Yes. In multiple -
candidate races, like- minded constituencies such as Latinos, liberals,
conservatives, etc. can split their vote among their own competing
candidates, allowing a candidate with less overall support to prevail. IRV
allows those voters to rank all of their candidates and watch as votes
transfer to their candidate with the most support. In partisan races, IRV
prevents the possibility of a third party candidate "spoiling" the race by
taking enough votes from one major candidate to elect the other.
Does IRV save money? Yes. Traditional two- round, "delayed" runoffs are
common around the country. IRV halves the cost of those elections because it
determines a majority winner in a single election. Before adopting IRV, for
example, San Francisco spent as much as $2 million on each election in its
delayed runoff, and statewide runoffs in places such as Texas cost far more. In
addition, many states and cities use two rounds of special elections to fill vacated
seats and instead could elect a popular winner with IRV in one round of voting. In
such situations IRV also reduces the reliance of candidates on special interest
donors because they only have to campaign and raise money for one election
rather than two.
Does IRV affect voter turnout? Yes. Turnout generally increases. IRV
gives every voter incentive to participate because your vote still counts
even if your first choice candidate is defeated. Also, since IRV only
requires one election, the decisive election takes place when turnout is
highest, typically November.
Does IRV affect campaign debate? Yes. Because IRV may require
second and third choice votes to win, candidates have incentive to focus
on the issues, to attract voters to their positions and to form coalitions.
Negative campaigning and personal attacks are much less effective in an
IRV election.
Where is IRV used? Many places. Ireland uses IRV to elects its
president, Australia to elect its House of Representatives, London to elect
its mayor, San Francisco to elect its major city offices such as mayor, Utah
Republicans to nominate congressional nominees at its state convention,
many major universities for their student government elections and the
American Political Science Association to elect its president. Literally
hundreds of jurisdictions, organizations and corporations use IRV to elect
leaders.
Whom does IRV advantage? IRV advantages the majority, since it
ensures that a minority of voters can never defeat a candidate supported
by a majority. It also gives the voter more power, since s /he can express a
range of choices.
Can the voting equipment handle IRV? Modern voting equipment,
such as optical scanners and computer touch screens, can handle IRV at
no additional cost. Older technologies such as punch cards and lever
machines cannot handle IRV, so it doesn't make sense to adopt IRV until
new equipment is purchased. In these cases, we recommend legislation
authorizing the use of IRV when the equipment is available. For reasons
unrelated to IRV, the trend in voting equipment is away from the older
technologies, so more and more jurisdictions are acquiring equipment that
can handle IRV.
Why don't more places use IRV? Prior to the advent of modern vote
counting equipment, IRV required a time - consuming and costly hand
count. Some jurisdictions that used IRV in statewide primaries found that
they rarely had plurality (less than majority) winners, so IRV seemed
unnecessary. With today's diversity and proliferation of parties and
candidates, low plurality winners are more common, and hand counts are
unnecessary.
Who opposes IRV? Little organized opposition to IRV exists. Election
officials are understandably cautious about a system that may increase
their workload, and some incumbents fear any change to the system that
elected them. If you can win an election under a plurality or runoff system,
however, the odds are that you would also win under IRV. The exceptions
are rare but can be important. Examples include several recent House
races in New Mexico, where Green Party candidates threw races to
Republicans, and state legislative races in Alaska in which Libertarians
and Alaskan Independent Party candidates knocked off Republicans.
Introduction to Choice Voting
Choice voting (e.g, "single transferable vote" or "preference voting ") is a forni of limited
voting in which voters maximize their one vote's effectiveness through ranking choices.
Choice voting is very likely to provide fair results, can be used in both partisan and non-
partisan elections and does not require primaries. It is recommended as the best system
for local government elections.
To vote, voters simply rank candidates in order of preference, putting a "1" by their first
choice, a "2" by their second choice and so on. Voters can rank as few or as many
candidates as they wish, knowing that a lower choice will never count against the chances
of a higher choice.
To determine winners, the number of votes necessary for a candidate to earn office is
established based on a formula using the numbers of seats and ballots: one more than
1 /(# of seats + 1). In a race to elect three seats, the winning threshold would be one vote
more than 25% of the vote -- a total that would be mathematically impossible for four
candidates to reach.
After counting first choices, candidates with the winning threshold are elected. To
maximize the number of voters who help elect someone, "surplus" ballots beyond the
threshold are transferred to remaining candidates according to voters' next - choice
preferences: in the most precise method, every ballot is transferred at an equally reduced
value. After transferring surplus ballots until no remaining candidate has obtained the
winning threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. All of his/her ballots
are distributed among remaining candidates according to voters' next - choice preferences.
This process continues until all seats are filled. Computer programs have been developed
to conduct the count, although the ballot count often is done by hand.
Choice voting has been used for city council elections in Cambridge (MA) since 1941
and is used for Community School Board elections in New York and for national
elections in Ireland and Australia. Cambridge's 13% African- American community has
helped elect a black candidate in every election since the 1950s; choice voting in other
cities -- like New York in the era of Mayor Fiorello La Guardia -- also resulted in fair
racial, ethnic and partisan representation.
Example: The chart below illustrates choice voting in a partisan race with 6 candidates
running for 3 seats: Jones, Brown and Jackson are Democrats; Charles, Murphy and
Stevens are Republicans. With 1000 voters, the threshold of votes needed to win election
is 251: (1000/4) + 1.
Note that Democrats Brown and Jones and Republican Charles win, with over 75% of
voters helping directly to elect a candidate. Having won 60% of first choice votes,
Democrats almost certainly would have won three seats with a winner- take -all, at -large
system. (They also would have won three seats with a limited vote system -- and likely
with cumulative voting -- because of "split votes" among the Republicans.) Despite
greater initial support, Murphy loses to Charles because Murphy is a polarizing candidate
who gains few transfer votes. Finally, 45 of 345 voters who help elect Brown in the
fourth count chose not to rank Charles and Murphy, which "exhausts" their ballots.
1st Count 2nd Count 3rd Count 4th Count 5th Count
atk s
ones'snuplus nnitlt's votes rown's votes
Candidate ones wins votes
h•ansferred transferred ransferred
transferred
Brown D) 175 +10 = 185 + 10 = 195 +150 = 345 F-9 4 = 2 11
Jones D 270 -19 = 251 �•�� - -
Jackson
Charles (R) 130 F 2 = 132 + 75 = 207 + 14 = 221 + 44 = 265
Murphy (R)] +0 =150 +30 =180 +3 =183 +5 =188
Smith (R) 120 + 1 = 121 _ -121 = 0
Exhausted ��� - + 457=745
Misunderstandings about Choice Voting
Q. What's wrong with just giving each voter as many tin-ranked votes as
there are seats - so if there are three seats up for election, each voter can cast three votes?
A. Political scientists refer to that as "first- past -the- post" or plurality voting, and it suffers from
some serious defects that can result in very unrepresentative outcomes. One problem with
this common voting system (block plurality vote - for - three) is that it allows the majority to
sweep the election, shutting out all minorities.
hi fact, if only four candidates are running for three seats, a candidate can lose despite getting
support from a majority of voters. This was exactly what happened to a candidate seeking to
be the first Latino elected from Montgomery County, Maryland in 1998.
At the same time, if the majority group has too many candidates nominated, there is a spoiler
dynamic that divides up the majority, allowing the minority group to sweep and win every
seat, totally violating the principle of majority rule. Either way, some voters are likely to have
two or three votes help elect candidates and others, none of their votes. This violates the spirit
behind the goal of one - person, one -vote.
While the "vote- for - three" system is conmion and simple to use, it can be
extremely anti - democratic. In summation, yes you could use a different voting system that
gave each voter three votes instead of one, or combined preferences in some different manner,
but it would not be as fair or representative as STV Choice Voting. Choice Voting assure that
the majority of voters elect a majority of seats, but also that substantial minorities can elect
their fair share of seats as well. All voters deserve to have a representative elected by their
vote. It is not my business to say who should represent you if somebody else is representing
me. With Choice Voting everybody has an equal voice. If me and my friends have the power
to vote for all three, then I have the power to get all the representation and deny representation
to others, which is unfair. This aspect of Choice Voting is similar to the district system that we
use: there may be 80 members of a state legislature, but I only get to vote for one. The
difference is that with choice voting, I get to help define my own non - geographic "district"
rather than have my options narrowed to one or two candidates.
Q. Are you saying that Choice Voting is always the best election method for electing a
representative body?
A. There are other methods of proportional representation, which are contingent on the
existence of political parties. If one's goal is to assure both majority rule and diversity, in the
absence of a party system, the Choice Voting system (STV) is clearly the best option. It is
generally held by political scientists who specialize in voting methods to be the best and
fairest voting system for creating a fully representative board. If, however, your goal is to
elect a body that excludes minority voices and is 100% aligned with the majority group,
Choice Voting is not appropriate.
Q. What are the key elements that assure both majority rule and minority representation?
A. The goal of choice voting, in principle, is to assure that nearly every voter can elect at least
one representative that genuinely represents that voter. You rank several to make sure that one
of your preferred representatives actually wins. The essence of STV Choice Voting is that
each voter has one net vote, and the alternate rankings are contingency preferences in case
your favorite is already a winner, or gets defeated. Choice voting allows groups of like -
minded voters to coalesce around the strongest candidate among the ones they prefer. In
effect, the rankings on the ballots allow the voters to group themselves into equal -sized
constituencies -- each with a preferred representative. It should not be the majority's right to
decide who gets to have a voice on the representative body. Representation is for everybody,
and not just a majority.
Q. Does ranking alternate candidates hurt the chances of my favorite candidate?
A. No. Ranking additional choices cannot hurt your favorite candidate. These are just
contingency choices, in case your favorite candidate already has enough support to win a seat
or has no chance of winning.
Q. Shouldn't a first choice count twice as much as a second choice?
A. Choice voting doesn't work like that at all. Each voter has a single vote, and initially it only
counts for the voter's first choice, with nothing going to any of the later preferences. Only if
that first- choice candidate has more than enough votes to win, or if that candidate has so little
support that he or she gets defeated, can a ballot count towards the election of a later
preference. A voter's alternate rankings are a contingency vote to make sure a member's vote
isn't wasted on a sure winner who has a surplus of votes, or a sure loser, who can't possibly
win.
Q. Why not always take into account the lower preferences for each candidate when
determining winners?
A. There could be theoretical voting method that assigns a point value to each ranking (similar
to the Borda Count Voting method proposed for
single -seat elections). However, any such alternative system has a serious flaw - a voter's
lower preference ranking could help to defeat that voter's most preferred candidate. For this
reason, any voting system that takes into account lower preferences on a ballot at the outset
leads to insincere strategic voting in order to protect your true favorite choice. That is, a vote
for my second choice candidate may end up narrowly
defeating my first choice, therefore I have a strategic interest in not honestly indicating my
second choice, and instead give a second choice to a candidate who is sure not to nose ahead
of my favorite candidate.
With Choice Voting, your vote stays with your more preferred candidate until that candidate
can no longer use your vote.
Q. Ties seem to be a big issue with Choice Voting, at least when the number of voters is
small.
A. Actually ties are no more likely to impact the final outcome of an election under Choice
Voting than under any other voting system. Using a traditional winner -take all system, we
simply don't care about candidates who are not near the top who might be tied. But since
Choice Voting allows minority voters to also win a fair share of seats, we need to pay attention
to the ties near the bottom in order to winnow the field of candidates, and allow one of the
candidates the chance to advance to another round of counting. Because Choice Voting is
counted in rounds to maximize how representative the final body is, ties for last place (and
thus elimination) may occur repeatedly. It is important to understand that when settling a tie
for last place, and thus elimination, that in most cases all of the tied candidates will eventually
be eliminated any way. It is extremely unlikely that the drawing of lots for eliminating a last
place candidate will have any effect on the final outcome of the election.
Q. Is it respecting the "will of the voters" to settle ties by drawing lots? Isn't there a better way
to break ties than drawing lots?
A. A tie means that there is no clear "voters' will" to "respect" on that matter, so randomly
drawing lots is fair, and is the common practice in typical winner- take -all elections as well.
However, because we have more information about voter preferences due to the rank -order
ballot, there are alternative methods for settling ties that could be used with Choice Voting.
For example, one option is to examine which of the tied candidates was behind during the
previous round of counting, and eliminate that tied candidate first. While that tie - breaking
method "feels" fairer, it may not be. The relative position of candidates in early rounds of the
vote count may have far more to do with the number of similar candidates who happen to be
on the ballot splitting up the vote, than with the relative strength of support for a candidate.
While the use of alternate tie - breaking rules could theoretically change the outcome, the
likelihood of that occurring in any given real -world election is remote.
Q. In a small election, what about letting the majority of voters settle ties along the way?
A. If you allowed the rest of the voters who don't support any of the tied candidates to pick
which one of them to defeat, you are allowing the dominant group to overwhelm the smaller
constituencies. It would be fine to allow the dominant group to settle ties if there was no
interest in diversity and assuring minority inclusion. But if the goal is to elect a fully
representative body, the dominant majority should get to pick THEIR share of seats, but not
also weigh in and limit the possible winners among the minority constituencies.
DRAFT 10.27.04 — ABC
November _, 2004
Re: Iowa City Charter Review Commission
Invitation to Community Discussion on Potential Charter Amendments
December 1, 2004 — 5:30 p.m.
Dear Community Organization:
As you know, the Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council
to review the Iowa City Charter and propose amendments to the same. Pursuant to the existing
Charter, any amendments recommended by the Commission must either be adopted by the City
Council or placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters. The Commission has been
meeting regularly since May of 2004 and has received public input through letters, e- mails,
telephone calls, visitors to meetings, and an October 12`s public hearing. As a result of these
meetings and public input, several potential changes have been discussed and considered, some
substantive and some less so.
The Commission has decided, in an effort to facilitate greater substantive interest and
participation in the Charter review process, to host a Community Discussion of several issues it
believes warrant in -depth public consideration. The issues to be discussed include: (1)
(2) (3) ( and (4) [ * * *+rtrt)
Each of these issues has been the subject of considerable discussion by the Commission. Some
have resulted in tentative changes to the Charter being recommended, while others have resulted
in no recormnnended change. With each issue, though, the Commission has determined it should
encourage public discussion of the same, prior to finally deciding whether a related change
should be reconuuended to the City Council. The Charter Review Commission invites and
encourages your organization to be a part of this public discussion.
The format of the Community Discussion will be less formal and more interactive than a
traditional public hearing. Depending on the number of participants, those attending will be
divided into four or eight groups. After being divided into groups, each group will spend twenty -
five to thirty minutes discussing one of the four specific issues, with Commission members
facilitating the discussion and taking notes. With the completion of the first discussion, the group
will be asked to discuss the second issue (and then the third and the fourth), with Commission
members again facilitating. At the conclusion of the group discussions, all participants will
gather and the Commission members will briefly synopsize the group discussions.
The Commission's hope is that smaller groups, facilitation, adequate time, and less formality will
engender meaningful discussion in a way that will benefit the Commission's review of the
Charter. While there will be general notices published about this Community Discussion, and all
members of the public will be welcome, please allow this letter to serve as a special invitation to
your organization. The Commission hopes you will find a way to attend and participate in this
timely and important discussion of issues relevant to our city's Charter.
Very truly yours,
Bill Sueppel
Chairperson