Loading...
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