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