Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-2004 Charter Review CommissionPage 3 November 1 2004 PACKET CR44 Agenda for 11 -1 CR45 Minutes of October 26 CR46 Minutes of October 27 CR47 Memorandum from City Attorney and City Clerk re Pending Issues CR48 Community Process Letter - DRAFT CR49 Community Process Letter - NOVICK DRAFT CR50 Memorandum from City Clerk regarding distribution of community process letter (attached list) November 8 & November 9 2004 PACKET CR51 Agenda for 11 -8 & 11 -9 CR52 Minutes of November 1 CR53 Community Process Letter — DRAFT 11 -08 -04 CR54 Memorandum from City Attorney re 11 -3 -04 Red -Lined Charter November 16, 2004 PACKET CR55 Agenda for 11 -16 CR56 Minutes of November 8 CR57 Memorandum from City Clerk re community process letter 11.16.04 CR55 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:00 -5:00 PM City Manager's Conference Room 410 East Washington Street 1. Approve Minutes 2. Public Comment 3. December 1 Community Process Session Publicity Posters on City buses Handouts at City Hall and Public Library Information desks Press Release Guest Editorial City Website Cable television Radio programs Facilitator information 4. Meeting Schedule November 22 (7:00- 9:30AM; City Hall /Harvat Hall) December 1 (Community Discussion session; 5:30 PM; Library) December 8 (7:00 -9:00 AM; Harvat Hall) December 13 (7:00 -9:30 AM; Harvat Hall) January 20 (7:00 PM; Harvat Hall; televised) 5. Review Charter 6 Old Business 7. Adjournment (5:00 PM) MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2004 — 7:00 AM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (left 8:47 AM), Vicki Lensing, Nate Green (left at 8:45 AM), Naomi Novick, William Sueppel, Chair; and Lynn Rowat (arrived at 7:25 AM) Staff Present: Marian Kann, Eleanor Dilkes CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM. APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2004 MOTION: Lensing proved to accept the minutes of November 1, 2004, as submitted; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 8 -0 ( Rowat absent). PUBLIC COMMENT None. DECEMBER 1 COMMUNITY PROCESS SESSION Sueppel noted that the members had received a handout from Kubby, regarding run -off voting and elections, for them to read. Review Letter Next, Sueppel stated that they would review the latest draft of the letter that they plan to send to organizations in the community. Green noted that under the second bullet, there should be an "is" after primary (first sentence). Novick stated that she agrees with adding the "is ", which then means adding a "," before the "and" in the sentence. She further would like to see the next sentence read: The November city election has district council members elected by voters city- wide." Sueppel asked if the members agreed with these changes, and they all agreed. Novick then questioned the election of the mayor, where it states, "others powers as set out in State Code." A discussion ensued about what powers this position has, and Dilkes responded to questions. Green stated he agrees with Chappell on adding "Generally," to the beginning of the second sentence, "Generally, the mayor is the figurative head..." Members discussed leaving the sentence as is, but ending it after "meetings," and delete the "and other powers..." section. Sueppel asked if the members agree to this change, and they all agreed. Karr noted that before the members approved the letter they may want to discuss putting contact information in the letter, and any possible enclosures. The members agreed that adding an enclosure with "Contact the City Clerk...," as well as the phone numbers and email addresses of the members, is necessary. Karr will work on this. She also asked members if they wanted to send a copy of the Charter with the letter; and the members stated they want redline copies available the night of the public session, but not to mail any. Sueppel asked for clarification in the fourth paragraph, where it states, "...up to twenty -five minutes Charter Review Commission November 8, 2004 Page 2 discussing both issues." I-Ie asked if this should read "each" instead of "both." The members agreed to change this to "each." ( Rowat arrived at 7:25 AM) Sueppel quickly reviewed the suggested changes to the letter. MOTION: Nubby moved to approve the letter (CR53) as amended; seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 9 -0. Direct Mail Community "invitations" Kubby noted that under the Iowa Women's Foundation, the contact person should be Mari Sue Hartung, the new Executive Director. Kubby also noted that she would like to add the group FAIR! to the mailing list, with an address of P. O. Box 1812, in Iowa City, 52244. Kubby also noted that under the DVIP organization, the Chair is now Kristi Doser is. Kubby suggested sending the letter to chairs of boards and commissions, and staff members as well. Green suggested adding the student government to the mailing list (481MU). Sueppel asked that the city manger, and current and past Council Members be invited. Faculty Senate was also suggested, as members want to get the U of I involved. Margaret Raymond was the name given for this. Chappell noted that the Bar Association head is now Cynthia Parsons. There will be approximately 200 letters mailed out. Kubby asked Karr to send the letter electronically to the Charter Review members once she has finalized it. Publicity Members next discussed what type of publicity they want to use for the December 1 public session. Posters on city buses; handouts at City Hall and Public Library; Cambus handouts; a press release /media release will be done by Karr; guest editorial in the Sunday, November 281h, issue for the Gazette, the Daily Iowan, and the Press - Citizen — Sueppel and Chappell to work on this (Karr to get deadline); the city website — Karr will prepare this; cable TV — Karr will prepare this as well, from the information the members have already approved for the letter; radio programs — Lensing will check with the Dottie Ray program; Talk of Iowa was also discussed, and WSUI/KSUI. Kubby will talk to producers at WSUI about Talk of Iowa to see what is available for them. Rowat and Novick are available to help Kubby with this. It was suggested that KCJJ also be contacted. Everyone will check into these various avenues and report back to the members at the next meeting. Handouts Karr noted that the newest redline version of the Charter will be available for everyone at the December 1 public session. Karr asked the members if they wanted flipcharts for that evening, and it was agreed that they would need at least two. Facilitators will use these for group discussions. Facilitator Information Sueppel stated that he would like to see teams working as facilitators at the public session. This way, one person will be the "facilitator" of the discussion, and the other will be the "note taker." Groups were set up as follows: Charter Review Commission November 8, 2004 Page 3 Rowat (facilitator) + Lensing (note taker) Kubby + Sueppel " Chappell +Novick " Green + Werner " (TAPE ENDS) Discussion continued on how these teams will work to keep the discussion going, and to keep notes, but to work together to keep the evening flowing. Sueppel suggested that they have a break after these discussion sessions, and at that time the facilitators and note takers will get together to compare notes, and to prepare something for the group as a whole. Davidsen stated that she feels they are structuring this public session too much, and it may eliminate open discussion by those in attendance. Kubby stated that she feels the opposite is true, that as people bring up these others issues, the facilitators can ask them to bring up their issues in the large group, and to see how it relates to what they are discussing. Sueppel stated that lie feels the last hour should be opened up to discussion by the attendees. Davidsen asked if she could have an audiotape of the public session, as she will not be in town. Kann will make sure she gets one. Sueppel then asked if they were going to tape each individual group. Members agreed that this was not necessary. The opening and ending part of the session will be on audiotape. Sueppel suggested they go ahead and decide what points they want to make at the public session, and asked that they go ahead and write up something for the facilitators to use that evening. Under the first issue, Mayor, Kubby listed the following ideas: have we suffered under the current system; good personality versus good governance; inexperience; vacancy created in other council seat — causing special election; and higher spending in campaigns. On the other side, she listed: trust electorate to pick leader of the leaders; entrenched experience (stale); and more democratic. The issue of term length was discussed briefly, with the pros and cons being looked at. Under the next issue, district representative, the following was proposed. Kubby asked that this information be typed up for the facilitators to use at the December 1 session. Green opened the discussion with a positive and a negative concerning the election of representatives. It could be either more democratic, or less democratic, depending on the at -large seats. The growth of the community, versus the amount of representation, was also discussed. The topic of reducing voter confusion was also discussed, in terms of more direct representation. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was mentioned briefly. MEETING SCHEDULE Sueppel asked the members if they felt they needed to meet tomorrow at 3:00 PM, as scheduled. The members agreed there was no reason to meet tomorrow, and that the next meeting will be November 16 at 3:00 PM, as scheduled. Charter Review Commission November 8, 2004 Page 4 REVIEW CHARTER Sueppel asked Dilkes to quickly explain the changes made to the most recent red lined copy of the Charter. Section 4.04 (3) and (4) were the sections with the major changes. Sueppel asked if Dilkes was of the opinion that the Charter could provide for termination without the consent of the Council and Dilkes said yes. MOTION: Green moved to TA Section 4.04 as red lined; seconded by Novick. Motion carried 8 -1; Kubby noting the negative. Dilkes noted that under Section 2.12 (B) she added an exception that deals with the appointment of the police and fire chiefs. MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 2.12 as red lined; seconded by Lensing. Motion carried 9 -0. Section 7.01 (B) (1) (j) (k) limitations, that the members agreed to, was mentioned next. These are changes from the Commission's last meeting. MOTION: Rowat moved to TA Section 7.01 (B) (1) (j) (k) as red lined; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 9 -0. Dilkes noted that in Section 8.02, she clarified the wording, as recommended by the Commission. A brief discussion took place regarding the wording, and members gave their opinions. MOTION: Lensing moved to TA Section 8.02 as red lined; seconded by Green. Motion carried 9 -0. (Green left at 8:45 AM) Karr noted that packets will go out on Wednesday, due to the November 10' holiday. OLD BUSINESS Sueppel stated that he wanted to thank Davidsen for her participation in the Commission, as this will be her last meeting. She will be leaving for Arizona. Davidsen thanked everyone and wished them luck, and members bid her farewell. Kubby had a question regarding why the City does not require birth date on the petitions, and why it is optional. (TAPE ENDS) Dilkes and Karr explained that a previous Commission was concerned about "invasion of privacy" issues. Sueppel noted that he initially wondered whether it was necessary to require Charter Review every 10 years but now believes it is a good idea. He stated that issues such as initiative and referendum are in the courts, and could possibly make the next review different. Novick stated that the need for an appendix is still strong, especially in light of the changes made to the Charter. Charter Review Commission November 8, 2004 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Chappell moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Rowat. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 AM. TO: Charter Review Commission FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk RE: Community Process Letter On November 9"' the community process letter approved at the November 8 Charter Review meeting was mailed to 240 organizations and individuals, as well as City Board and Commission Chairs. Later that same day I discovered that the letter failed to mention the location. On November 10 the letter was updated to include the location for future mailings, and also a postcard was mailed to the 240 organizations and individuals notifying them of the location. I have included a copy of the November 9 letter, November 10 letter, and postcard for your information. Contact information was included with the letter and you may be receiving calls regarding this. Enclosures November 9, 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: CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (3 19) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. 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 and has received public input through letters, e- mails, telephone calls, visitors to meetings, and an October 12t11 public hearing. As a result of these meetings and public input, several potential changes have been discussed by the Commission. The issues to be discussed by the community on December 1 include: (1) Election of Mayor - The Mayor is currently selected for a two -year term by a majority vote of the City Council members. The Mayor is the figurative head and a voting member of the City Council and has the responsibility to lead Council meetings. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain the same, should the Mayor instead be selected for a four -year term by a majority vote of the citizens? This would require one of the at -large council positions to be designated as the Mayor's slot and other possible administrative changes to the Charter. (2) District Representation - Currently 3 of 7 Council Members are nominated within their district and a primary is held in the district if needed. The November city election has district Council Members elected by voters citywide. Should the number of districts be increased? Should the district Council Members be "pure" i.e. general election held in the districts only? The Charter Review Commission invites and encourages members of your organization to be a part of this public discussion. Please give them this information. The format of this Community Discussion will be informal and interactive. Depending on the number of participants, those attending will be divided into groups. Each group will spend up to twenty -five minutes discussing each issue. At the conclusion of the group discussions all participants will gather. Commission members will briefly summarize the group discussions and allow time for a general discussion of any additional Charter issues raised by the citizens participating. The Commission's hope is that smaller groups and less formality will engender meaningful discussion in a way that will benefit the Commission's review of the Charter. The members of the Commission hope you will find a way to attend and participate in this timely and important discussion. /Vperry truly yours, W Will F. Sueppel Chairperson P.S. This meeting is open to the public, and anyone may attend. S/dk/Charterreview/communityprocessFINAL.doc 2004 -2005 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION BOARD CONTACTS William Sueppel, Chair Meardon, Sueppel & Downer P.L.C. 122 S. Linn St 52240 (w) 338 -9222 e -mail: bilifs @meardonlaw.com Andy Chappell 911 Rider St 52246 (w) 339 -6100 (h) 354 -7073 e -mail: achappell a()iowabar.org Penny Davidson 13668 N. Lobelia Way Tuscon, AZ 85737 (h) 520 - 825 -6949 e -mail: pkd317(a)aol.com (or) omd618(a�aol.com Karen Kubby 728 2nd Ave 52245 (w) 337 -2112 (h) 338 -1321 e -mail: kubby(a)pobox.com Naomi Novick 306 Mullin Ave 52246 (h) 337 -4649 As of 11108104 Vicki Lensing 2408 Mayfield Rd 52245 (w) 338 -8171 e -mail: vickilensing(a�luno.com Kevin Werner 3020 Wayne Ave 52240 (w) 356 -5989 (h) 354 -5873 e -mail: kwerneN( isbt.com Lynn Rowat 514 Stuart Ct 52245 -3531 (w) 351 -4121 (h) 351 -0661 e -mail: rowatle(o)mchsi.com Nate Green 231 Woodside Dr 52246 (h) 354 -1139 (c) 630- 532 -9587 e -mail: nate- green(a)uiowa.edu STAFF CONTACTS Marian Karr, City Clerk Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney 410 E Washington St 52240 410 E Washington St 52240 (w) 356 -5041 (w) 356 -5030 e -mail: marian- karr(a)iowa- city.org e -mail: eleanor- dilkes(aaiowa- city.org November 10, 2004 Our apologies! You recently received a letter from the Charter Review Commission inviting you to a meeting to share your opinions on potential amendments to the City Charter. We inadvertently omitted one important fact — the meeting place. To recap, the meeting will take place: December 1, 2004 — 5:30 P.M. Iowa City Public Library Room A 123 S. Linn Street If you did not receive or have misplaced the original letter, call 356 -5041 and a replacement letter will be sent to you. Or, go to wwwdcgov.org/ citycharter for complete information on the December 1 opportunity for citizen input. I � -a m wlq; Marian K. Karr, City Clerk CITY OF IOWA CITY i r ���rlll;�� Aiw ma CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 November 10, 2004 (3 19) 356 -5000 (319)356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org Re: Iowa City Charter Review Commission Invitation to Community Discussion on Potential Charter Amendments December 1, 2004 — 5:30 p.m. - Iowa City Public Library Room A (123 S. Linn St.) Dear Community Organization: The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. 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 and has received public input through letters, e- mails, telephone calls, visitors to meetings, and an October 12 "' public hearing. As a result of these meetings and public input, several potential changes have been discussed by the Commission. The issues to be discussed by the community on December 1 include: (1) Election of Mayor - The Mayor is currently selected for a two -year term by a majority vote of the City Council members. The Mayor is the figurative head and a voting member of the City Council and has the responsibility to lead Council meetings. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain the same, should the Mayor instead be selected for a four -year term by a majority vote of the citizens? This would require one of the at -large council positions to be designated as the Mayor's slot and other possible administrative changes to the Charter. (2) District Representation - Currently 3 of 7 Council Members are nominated within their district and a primary is held in the district if needed. The November city election has district Council Members elected by voters citywide. Should the number of districts be increased? Should the district Council Members be "pure" i.e. general election held in the districts only? The Charter Review Commission invites and encourages members of your organization to be a part of this public discussion. Please give them this information. The format of this Community Discussion will be informal and interactive. Depending on the number of participants, those attending will be divided into groups. Each group will spend up to twenty -five minutes discussing each issue. At the conclusion of the group discussions all participants will gather. Commission members will briefly summarize the group discussions and allow time for a general discussion of any additional Charter issues raised by the citizens participating. The Commission's hope is that smaller groups and less formality will engender meaningful discussion in a way that will benefit the Commission's review of the Charter. The members of the Commission hope you will find a way to attend and participate in this timely and important discussion. Very truly yours, William F. Sueppel Chairperson P.S. This meeting is open to the public, and anyone may attend. S/ clk/ Charterreview /communityprocessFI NAL.doc WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE IOWA CITY CHARTER? Our Mayor is currently chosen by the seven members of the council. Do you want the Mayor to be elected directly by the citizens? Or do you prefer the current method? Our Council is currently comprised of 4 at -large members and 3 district members. Do you want this to change to 3 at large and 4 by district? Or do you prefer the current composition? Our district candidates are winnowed down to 2 per district at a primary election if more than 2 seek a specific district seat. That district member is chosen by the voters citywide in the city election. Do you want district members to be chosen only by district voters in the city election? Or do you prefer the current method? Are there any other changes that you believe should be made to the City Charter? Here is your opportunity to speak out on these matters with your fellow citizens and with the members of the Review Commission. Come to the Iowa City Public Library, Room A, 123 S. Linn Street, at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, 2004. We want to discuss these issues with you. Historically, on November 15, 1973, the citizens of Iowa City approved a Home Rule Charter creating a new form of city government. That charter provided that a Charter Review Commission be established to review the charter 1 once every ten years and recommend any amendments that it deems fit. That process was followed in 1984 -1985 and in 1994 -1995. This past spring, the Iowa City Council appointed nine citizens to commence the decennial review and update. An organization meeting was held on May 19, 2004, and the Commission has met 15 times since then. The existing charter provides that a recommendation by the Review Commission must either (1) be adopted by the City Council; or (2) submitted by the council to the Iowa City voters for their consideration. While the nine members of the Review Commission are the ones who make the recommendations. it is essential that these members hear from the community. The format of this community discussion will be informal and interactive. Those attending will be divided into groups, which will discuss each of the issues specifically set out above. At the conclusion of the group discussions, all participants will gather to summarize the group discussions. Any additional charter issues may be raised and discussed at that time. The Review Commission hopes that this format will engender meaningful discussion and benefit the review of the Charter. This meeting is open to the public. The members of the Review Commission hope you will attend and participate in this timely and important discussion. William F. Sueppel, Chair Iowa City Charter Review Commission N Page 1 of I Bill F. Sueppel From: Nroamer @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:40 PM To: Bill F. Sueppel; achappell @iowabar.org; pdk317 @aol.com \; kubby @pobox.com; vickilensing @juno.com; kwerner @isbt.com; rowataie @mchsi.com; nate - green @uiowa.edu Subject: charter commission This is in response to a letter that I receive as chair of the Senior Center Commission from Bill Sueppel. Hello Penny, when did you move to Arizona? Is this permanent? The rest of you will pardon my personal note to Penny, we are old, old, friends. To business. I will present this to the Senior Center Commission at its next meeting. I will recommend that the Commission not take a stand on the charter as a Commission but instead make their own personal thoughts known if they have any. Now for my personal thoughts. I was a member of the original Charter Commission. I believe that the present Charter has worked well and would recommend any changes. I am opposed to having the Mayor elected by a majority vote of the citizens. I believe under the Council manager form of government that the Mayor should not be singled out specially. This might leave both the person elected and the voters to believe that he or she has more power than they have. This could cause confusion and might lead to problems with the City Manager and the Council and the Mayor. On the at large. We put this in the original Charter because some sections of the City thought that they needed representation from their area to represent their interests so we came up with the idea of candidates by sections and vote by the entire electorate. If you look at the past years since this was implemented in the charter, I do not think that the people elected by districts have performed any different than than the at large members. I guess that I would say if it isn't broke and is working well, why tinker with it. I would be happy to discuss this e-mail further if anyone wishes to. Jay Honohan, NRoamer @aol.com, Honohaa @HEBaadB.com 11/11/2004