Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-2004 Charter Review CommissionDecember 1, 2004 PACK CR67 Agenda for 12 -1 CR68 Minutes of November 22 CR69 Invitation to local High Schools December 8 2004 PACKET CR70 Agenda for 12 -8 CR71 Minutes of December 1 CR72 Letter from Carol deProsse CR73 December 1 Materials -KXIC Interview -Sign In Sheets -Copy of Media Coverage CR74 Video On Demand (VOID) Request 12. -11 -04 CR70 UNUMMMW CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, December 8, 2004 7:00 -9:00 AM City Hall, Harvat Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. Approve Minutes (11/22 and 12/1) 2. Public Comment Receive letter from Carol deProsse 3. Review December 1 Community Process Session 4. Review Charter 5. Request for Video On Demand (VOD) Information 6. Meeting Schedule December 13 (7:00 -9:30 AM; Harvat Hall) January 20 (7:00 PM; Harvat Hall; televised) 7 Old Business 8. Adjournment (9:00 PM) E C- s- a R71 E MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION — COMMUNITY DISCUSSION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2004 — 5:30PM ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Nate Green, Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing, Lynn Rowat, and William Sueppel, Chair Members Absent: Penny Davidsen Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR: Chair Sueppel welcomed everyone to this evening's Community Discussion. He briefly explained that they would be breaking into smaller groups, with a facilitator and a scribe (both being Commission members) leading each group. He stated that each facilitator will open the discussion with dialog concerning the respective issues that the Commission has noted, but he further stated that this is everyone's meeting, and he welcomed public continent. The Charter Review Commission at a glance: • have been meeting since May 2004; • have held 19 meetings, with approximately 50 hours of discussion; • have reviewed the Charter in full Thee times. INTRODUCTION OF CHARTER MEMBERS: Sueppel then introduced the members of the Commission: Andy Chappell, Johnson County Assistant Attorney; Penny Davidsen, not present this evening, but keeps in touch through telephone conference; Naomi Novick, former Mayor of Iowa City and long -time activist; Nate Green, first year law student at U of I, former President of the Student Government; Vicki Lensing, State Representative with interest in community affairs; Lynn Rowat, President of West Bank; Karen Kubby, long -time City Council Member and active in municipal affairs; Kevin Werner, Iowa State Bank; and Bill Sueppel, Chair of the Charter Review Commission. BREAK OUT INTO SMALL GROUPS: Sueppel noted that everyone's nametag has a number on it. After a head count of approximately thirty attendees, Sueppel had everyone break into four smaller groups by number. Issues to be covered by facilitators: • election of mayor at -large by the voters, versus by the Council members; • change the make -up of the Council; i.e.: (4) district seats and (3) at- large; • should voters within each district select their candidates at the primary election, and also their representative, at the City election. (TAPE OFF) Charter Review Commission December 1, 2004 Page 2 REPORTS OF SMALL GROUPS Novick started the discussion, stating that she and Chappell had an excellent discussion group. Their group discussed the election of the mayor issue. The main points noted were: • responsibilities, i.e.: does the mayor vote or not; • mayor should be someone with Council experience; • whether or not the role of the mayor should be "passed around among Council members "; • should the mayor have term limits; • if elected for a 2 -year tern, should the mayor be allowed a second 2 -year term; • group agreed that two 2 -year terms should be the limit for a mayor as a Council member. Chappell added that the consensus among their group was that the mayoral position should remain selected by the seven City Council members, as it currently stands. He noted that there were concerns about having this position be a directly elected one, namely with concerns over the power this position would have. Werner next discussed the group that he and Green led (Attachment # 1). He stated that one of their group participants, in regards to the mayor being directly elected, asked why they would change this process if the duties or powers of the mayor will not change. Some main issues in this group: • more democratic to have a directly- elected mayor; • citizens at -large would have their say as to who the mayor should be; • name recognition — does that make for a "strong" mayor; • experience needed; • leadership; • expectations when elected by citizens at- large, with no change in duties; • directly - electing mayor is more connection with citizens; • representation; • money spent on elections — running for mayor vs. a council seat. Next, Rowat and Lensing (Attachment # 2) reported on their group's discussion. Lensing noted that their main issues were: • role of the mayor — ceremonial vs. strong mayor; • consensus was: if duties of mayor remain the same, then so should the system; • options the group discussed: do nothing; entertain the idea of term limits; or look at changing the role and responsibilities of the mayor, which would then open the possibility of also changing the way the mayor is elected; The final group to report was Kubby and Sueppel. Sueppel stated that they also had a good discussion, and that their points were: • why have an election at -large if powers do not change; • strong mayor form of govermnent discussed at length; • city manager role with a strong mayor; Charter Review Commission December 1, 2004 Page 3 • cooperative city council vs. a political contentious council; • "with a weak mayor, a general election makes no sense'; "voter turnout would increase if we had an election of a mayor"; "it works, why change it"; "we wouldn't have had an Eric Shaw issue if we had elected a mayor at- large, rather than someone who would have given a different turn on the issue than the city did at the time'; • qualifications and experience. The second issue, of districts, was discussed next. Novick started this discussion with their group's main points: • nominations from districts vs. at- large; • when elected at- large, does a representative feel they are representing their district; • is a district representative more aware of district issues, and more apt to bring them to the council; neighborhood associations — role in community; ■ (4) districts vs. (3) —not a majority consensus to change; district representatives be elected by district voters only. Werner noted that their group's points on this were: • to be able to care about your district, as well as the entire community; • when candidates run in their districts, they ram for a third of the town, but then have to ram in the entire community in the general election, and the ensuing confusion this causes; • getting more information to the voters on who they are voting for; • size of districts — redistrict after the census; • shape of districts — how does this effect the community; • qualified and good leadership in council — help or hurt with change in districts. Green added that there was a consensus in their groups that the four districts, versus three districts, did not matter either way. Lensing noted that their group also spent a lot of time talking about the confusion of the current system, as well as: • desire for effective leadership; • how the city has changed in the last 30 years — population growth and change; • consensus of group: more districts are needed, with a (4) district and (3) at -large seats; • discussed making the council larger, but after discussion, seven is a better number; • being elected by districts vs. at- large; • disenfranchising voters by not allowing them to vote for everyone. Sueppel noted that their group consensus appears to be the opposite. Their issues were: Charter Review Commission December 1, 2004 Page 4 • consensus of group was to stay with (3) districts and (4) at- large, but they want the district people to be elected by the voters within each district; • confusion of not knowing district representatives; • cheaper to run for district vs. all at- large; • discussed having as many districts as possible, but not more than (7); however, as the discussion continued, people were more concerned about electing the people from within their district vs. the number elected. Sueppel then asked if anyone on the Commission had any issues they wished to raise. He then asked the Commission members to write up the notes they took during their group discussions, and to bring them to the next Commission meeting. LARGE DISCUSSION OF CHARTER: Sueppel opened up the floor to the public, asking that anyone who wishes to address the Commission needs to come forward to the microphone. Don Anciaux, 2119 Russell Drive, thanked the Commission for their work on the Charter Review. He feels the Council representation would be better served being at -large 1, at- large 2, at -large 3, and at -large 4. Sueppel asked for clarification on this system. Caroline Dieterle rose next, and stated that she is particularly interested in Section 2.08 Appointments made by Council, and Sections 4.04, Duties of the City Manager. She stated that three summers ago site helped to circulate a petition, asking for amendments to the Charter, and that one of these amendments being asked for was to have the City Council appoint the Chief of Police. She would like to see this inserted in Section 2.08. She said they had at least 1,600 signatures on this petition, and there was widespread support for this. Under the Duties of City Manager, she noted that point 3, under 4.04, "appoint the Chief of the Police Department and the Chief of the Fire Department with the approval of the City Council." She asked why this was underlined in the new version of the Charter, to which Sueppel noted that this is new. Kubby noted that this is a clarification in the current process. Dieterle stated that she feels the Council should appoint the Chief of Police, not the City Manager. Her other concern is the remark made at the beginning of this meeting, in reference to Section 8.01, Item C. She asked about this section, and if the number of signatures has changed. Sueppel noted that this is the Iowa Code, and not a change by the Commission. Her next concern centered around the "right to petition" issue. Sueppel asked Dilkes for clarification on this issue. Dilkes stated that the State Code provides that objections can be filed to a petition to amend the Charter, and that those objections will be reviewed by a committee, made up of the mayor, the clerk, and another council member, to hear those objections. Those provisions come from Section 362.4. Dieterle stated that she feels the Commission should make some representation to the State that this deludes the redress that the citizens have, as it means it is much easier for the city government to keep something from being voted on that has been petitioned for validly. One of the main points of these petitions was that the citizens wanted the Chief of Police to be appointed by the Council. Charter Review Commission December 1, 2004 Page 5 Tom Carsner stated that he wanted to echo some of the issues they discussed in his group, as well as to offer an apology to anyone if he steps on toes. He stated that the election of the mayor does have a direct impact on the powers of the mayor. He feels we need to change the Charter to a "strong mayor" form of government. (TAPE ENDS) He feels that the low salaries paid to the City Council members eliminates many people from considering these positions, due to the time commitment. He feels the counselors should receive a part -time salary, somewhere in the range of $20,000- $30,000, in order to allow these people to give more of their time. He does not like the City Manager position being relied upon so heavily. He feels citizens would give more input if the council members were responding more directly to them. Sueppel asked him what he considers a strong mayor form of government. Carsner stated that it would be one where that person is elected directly by the citizens, and that powers which currently reside with the city manager would come to this position, as well. Dean Thornberry stated that he disagrees with the previous speaker. He thinks the current form of government is fine. Jay Honohan, 1510 Somerset Lane, stated that under 7.01 B Limitations, the new item, K, being added, lie suggested the words "capital improvements" rather than "public improvements ". He stated that lie is also strongly in favor of the current form of government, and that it works well in this community. He also noted that the language, concerning the Chief of Police and Chief of the Fire Department, is excellent, and he agrees with this. He further noted that the City Council has always been a part of this process, and the language now shows that. He finished with thanking the Commission for their hard work. John Balmer, 10 Princeton Court, next addressed the Commission. He thanked the Commission for a very thorough discussion on the Charter. He stated that he would also endorse the current form of governnment. He does strongly encourage term limitations for the mayoral position. Kubby asked if he had any specific ideas on limits, to which Balmer replied that lie feels two terms should be it. Under Section 7.03, Eligibility, he asked if the Commission has discussed "raising this bar" or not, as he feels this number should be higher as it is too easy to obtain signatures. Sueppel stated that they have had discussion on this, and two issues were raised. One is that on an initiative and referendum petition, you must be a qualified voter, versus an eligible voter; and that this is a limitation. Secondly, 25% is a fairly substantial number, and Kubby noted that the average would have been around 2,200, so the 2,500 is actually above this. Sueppel noted again that these have to be qualified voters at the courthouse, or they do not count. John Neff from Iowa City stated that he would like to reemphasize that the city has doubled in size in the last 30 years, and there is a much wider range of incomes now. He feels they may need to make some adjustments because of this. One would be to increase the number of districts, and he feels that four should be the minimum. He would also like to see the council play a much more active role. He states that the power has shifted from the council to the city manager way too far, and there needs to be a balance. Charter Review Commission December 1, 2004 Page 6 Garry Klein next spoke to the Commission. He thanked the Commission, and noted that the small groups concept was a good idea. He stated that he agrees with John earlier, that each district should vote for the representative in their district. He noted that this would simplify the voting process, in his opinion. Some clarification was made on how this process is currently. Dieterle stated that she had a question concerning Section 7.01, D. She asked the Commission if they could give her an example of what subject would be appropriate for an initiative and referendum. Kubby stated that one example she can think of is a pesticide ordinance. She noted that this would be an issue- oriented ordinance, if it were not preempted, for instance. The First Avenue project was used as an example. Dieterle then asked which boards and commissions are mandated by the State. She noted that under this Section, it states the Council. Sueppel noted that Planning and Zoning, Board of Adjustment, Civil Service, and Library would be examples. Dieterle questioned the Commission on whether or not it would be possible, under Boards and Commissions, that the City would have to have a board of Police Review, and give it some real power. Sueppel stated that he believes this could be done. Dieterle requested that the Commission consider adding this to the Charter. Sueppel stated that they would have to defer to the City Attorney, and the Commission will find out about a Police Review Board. Carrie Watson stated that she would agree with Tom Carsner, who spoke earlier. She feels there needs to be more responsiveness to the electorate in Iowa City, and her question for the Commission is how seriously are they looking at changing the actual structure of the City to a strong mayor. Chappell noted that their small group focused on the issue as it was written — the idea of having a mayor elected by the council versus a weaker mayor, elected by the electorate. Dale Shultz spoke next, and stated that he supports the idea of electing district council members, only from those who live in those districts. He feels this is a good idea as it makes the election smaller, and more accessible, especially for new candidates. Arm Bovbjerg, Iowa City, asked the Commission if they have received anything from the citizens in Iowa City, or from the City government or its different division, that has suggested any specific changes that are desired. Chappell stated that some of the changes in the latest "red lined" version of the Charter are reflective of comments they have heard from the public. He noted that staff has only brought up issues needing clarification. Kubby noted that this is mainly in the initiative and referendum section, in order to make it more clear for people. Sueppel noted that there have not been any major issues brought up. Dale Shultz spoke again and asked about Section 7.01 B — Limitation on initiatives and referendums. He asked about the statement "or notice to bidders" and asked for clarification. Sueppel noted that they were coming up with two different cut -off points. Discussion continued on the process with bidding and letting of contracts. Kubby Charter Review Commission December 1, 2004 Page 7 followed up with telling the attendees that the Commission will be reviewing all of tonight's information, suggestions, comments, etc., and that those who signed up this evening will be getting a personal invitation to the next public hearing. Sueppel noted that meetings are scheduled for December 8, from 7 -9:30 AM; December 13, from 7 -9:30 AM; and then tentatively there will be another public hearing on January 20 at 7:00 PM at City Hall. ATTACHMENT # 1 (page 1 of 2) (Flipchart for Werner /Green group) Mayor No change in duties- why have the Mayor elected separately? This would create confusion with voters. Directly elected Mayor would be more democratic. A candidate may have name recognition with our citizens; however, this person may not be best qualified to be Mayor. Experience and leadership were discussed. Separate election creates expectations for the Mayor. With no changes in duties this would create voter confusion. Directly elected Mayor would have more connection to citizens. More money spent on elections. May eliminate some candidates due to financial resource limitations. Since the Mayor represents the City, citizens should elect. Selection behind the scenes. Want the process more public. Try with a sunset clause. Trust people to vote, take part in elections and elect the Mayor. ATTACHMENT # 1 (page 2 of 2) (Flipchart for Werner /Green group) District Seats Care about districts as well as entire community. Current system is best of both worlds. What is the most important issue facing our community? Depending where voters live the answer will vary. Need district representation. Candidates run primary campaign in 1 /3rd of City. General election candidates need to reach entire community. Not fair to voters who need education on the candidate as they are expected to vote. Confusion for voters. Confusion — I can't vote for you because you are not in my district. Size of districts. Redistrict after census. 2.02 Make this a requirement. Current system is hard to understand. Shape of districts. Don't want districts to override City. Keeping the best interest of our community in mind. Difficulty in recruiting good City Council candidates to run. Voting systems. Vote for too may candidates. Election by district only to avoid confusion. How are the districts drawn? ATTACHMENT # 2 (page 1 of 2) (Flipchart for Rowat/Lensing group) Election of Mayor More costly campaigns Disadvantage to those who cannot raise contributions More conflict - power perspective Directly elected by people - more democratic If duties stay the same, keep current process Term limits for mayoral position Opportunity for all Council Members What is role of Mayor? Ceremonial - equal among Council OR More power /responsibilities Stronger role for Mayor - change election process Roles of Council /Mayor /City Manager Council elected Mayor - not necessarily best person Directly elected Mayor - not necessarily best person Is there community sentiment for a strong mayor? Philosophical vs. pragmatic Concern is lack of effective leadership Currently - Council Time spent reacting vs. being proactive Choices: - do nothing - keep with term limits - change role /responsibilities and way of electing ATTACHMENT # 2 (page 2 of 2) (Flipchart for Rowat/Lensing group) District Structure Current mix works - current city size supports Citywide voting for all seats Minimum of 4 districts All districts (w /strong Mayor) Disenfranchised voter if not allowed to vote for all seats Geographic districts have specific issues Within special districts Social interests Economic interests District issues vs. City -wide issues More districts needed - forces one to know your district Overall viewing of city vs. district viewpoint Full time job @ part -time pay More districts needed (4 districts /3 at large) Vote by entire community not just district Election confusion - more time spent on educating public than discussing issues Population increases economic/income differences More districts would help District -wide election More representative of district Less $, less signs Smaller population base to represent Council size of 7 - probably appropriate District issues or geographic distribution Ca CharterReviewCommission tcommunilyattachment 5281 Wapsi Avenue SE Lone Tree, IA 52755 -9795 November 19, 2004 William F. Sueppel Chairperson Charter Review Commission City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Sheet Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Bill: 2 - ®8- 4 CR72 Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to comment on items of interest that are currently before the Commission as it undertakes a review of the present Home Rule Charter. It would be my preference to have the Mayor elected by the voters -at- large. The Mayor's position has no particular significance other than to act as the chief representative of the City, sign legal documents on behalf of the Council, and perhaps, if truly motivated, to inspire the citizenry from time to time. I therefore can find no reason that this position — really nothing more than a popularity contest — should not be designated to the broader community. I am sure you will remember when Karen Kubby served on the Council and expressed the desire to be the Mayor. In my opinion, given that Karen served three terms and was at least once, if not twice, the top vote getter, it was nothing but mean - spiritedness that kept her from being selected to the position of Mayor, a position she had obviously earned and desired to hold. Having the Mayor elected by the voters would serve to remove such a distasteful element from the workings of the Council, allowing the Council to function with fewer personality conflicts. I am not necessarily opposed to the formation of more district seats, but only if the person elected to the council is chosen by a majority of the voters in his or her district. The present arrangement has little rationale, in that the person representing District A, B, or C, chosen by the voters at large, has no allegiance to the concerns of the district represented. Having the councilor elected from his or her district would allow the candidates to concentrate their campaigns on one part of the city and make the person chosen more representative of a particular District than is currently the case. Thank you for you consideration of my comments. I trust you will make copies available to the other members of the Charter Review Commission. Sincerely, O(cAa Carol W. deProsse Sondrae Fort rom: Kevin Crawley [kcrawley @citychannel4.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 2:38 PM To: sondrae- fort @iowa- city.org Subject: Charter Commission VOID What I'd like is really just one or two five- minute clips. My questions for them would be 1) What is the Charter Commission? and 2) What are the changes the Commission is looking at? If they would like to add a question or two to that, we could always add extra videos. Format wise, I just want a talking head. The viewers will call up the video by selecting the question, so we'd use no moderator or interviewer --just the CRC member(s) answering the question. Jerry will do the camera and editting work -- He says that if they could come over to our studio mid - morning -ish on Dec 2, we could get them out of here in 45 minutes to an hour. We're flexible on all of this, so let me know if something else would work better for them. in the meantime, I've put up a sequencer announcing the meeting and given the commission it's own interactive category -- Category 25. I put the summary from the website there. Kevin 8. 4 CR74 Distributed at 12/8 meeting. Page I of 1 Marian Karr From: Nroamer @aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 6:41 PM To: bills @meardonlaw.com; achappell @iowabar.org; PKD317 @aol.com; kubby @pobox.com; vickilensing @juno.com; kwerner @isbt.com; rowatle @mchsi.com; nate - green @uiowa.edu Cc: marian -karr @iowa - city.org; Eleanor- Dilkes @iowa -city Subject: Commission meeting 12/1 I want to again thank you for all of your time working on the charter. As a member of another high paying city commission, I can appreciate your time and effort. Just for the record, I completely agree with John Blamer that my first preference is not to make any substantive changes in the present charter. I have not been aware of any huge consensus from the population as a whole for changes in the present system. When you don't have a lot of people writing letters and arguing before the council for change, it usually means that they are basically satisfied. Also, I would not like to see 4 districts. This could mean deals between district representatives to vote against a project that benefits the city as a whole. Even though in the past. I have not seen any strong push by a district rep for his or her district. I hope that you don't mind but I will probably be e- mailing you more on this subject when I have had conversations with others on this subject and also have given it more thought. Jay Honohan 12/6/2004 Distributed at 12/8 meeting, Page 1 of Marian Karr From: John Neff [john- neff @uiowa.eduj Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 2:55 PM To: citycharter @iowa- city.org Subject: Comments on Charter Review While I think it is rive that the city manager has too much power I do not think he grabbed power instead the city council allowed some of its power to fall on the floor and the city manager picked it up and put it °in his pocket. In other words because the council has been unable to articulate durable polices on controversial issues the policy decisions are made by default which gives the manager considerable freedom of action. <>There have been numerous 4 to 3 votes on controversial issues over many years involving a large number of individual council members. This suggests that personalities of the manager and council members are not important factors. Do the 4 to 3 votes reflect real divisions in the community or is this a structural problem than can be fixed by tinkering with the structure of the council? o We can change the way council members are elected by increasing the number of districts and /or electing members from districts. I support increasing the number of districts to four if nothing else is changed. I think that a strong mayor is incompatible with a city manager form of govermnent so I don't want the mayor to given greater power. I do think the mayor should be limited to two tennis. I view such changes as fine timing of the present structure. o In general only people who can afford it run for city council. We can address that issue by decreasing the number of council members from seven to five and paying than $40,000 per year or whatever the County Supervisors are paid. This would be in my view a radical change. I think the 4 to 3 votes are the result of real divisions in the community so a radical change in the structure of the council could shift the balance of power. Which way? I have no idea. I would rather see fine tuning instead of radical change Q John Neff 2305 MacBride Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 12/6/2004 Distributed at 12/8 meeting. Bill, Based on feedback I have received from Caroline on last night's public hearing, I enclose for the Commission's reference the latest ruling from the District Court regarding Case EQVC 062049. When you have copies made of this ruling for the other members of the Commission, please include a copy of this letter. The issue before the court is whether- or not the Objections Committee exceeded its authority under Section 44.8. It is the Plaintiffs position that the Objections Committee is strictly limited to determining the validity of signatures on petitions should objections to the signatures be made. It is Plaintiffs position that the Objections Committee is not authorized under law to a priori determine the legality of issues submitted by petitioners, and especially so when petitions are submitted under a Home Rule Charter specifically granting the right of citizens to amend said charter. The resistance to this democratic process has been quite baffling since there is no guarantee that a majority of Iowa City voters would agree with the petitioners on the issues for which legal signatures were submitted. All the time, energy, and tax dollars paid to try to keep citizens from voting on the matters addressed by the petitions does not seem to be in keeping with original legislative intent authorizing Home Rule local government and control. (Sincerely, C.7 IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY MICHAEL BERENT, et al, Plaintiffs, 0.1 CITY OF IOWA CITY, CONNIE CHAMPION, STEVEN KANNER, ERNEST W. LEHMAN, MIKE O'DONNELL, IRVIN PFAB, DEE VANDERHOEF, and ROSS WILBURN, as members of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, and OBJECTIONS COMMITTEE" OF IOWA CITY, Defendants. EQCV 062049 F L t ` 1' !to RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEFENDANT "OBJECTIONS COMMITTEE" OF IOWA CITY Arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Defendant "Objections Committee" were heard October 7, 2004. Iowa City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes and Assistant City Attorney Susan Dulek appeared for the Committee. Bruce Nestor appeared for Plaintiffs. c> _ �> � 71 A concise statement of background facts was set out by the Court of Appeals on November 26; 2003. The court restates it here: Approximately 1600 individuals signed petitions seeking a vote on three proposed amendments to the home rule charter. The first amendment sought to have the chief of police appointed by the city council rather than the city manager and to have both the chief of police and city manager subject to retention elections. The second amendment sought the establishment of a police civilian review board with certain minimum powers. The third amendment directed the police department to issue citations in lieu of arrest for non - violent misdemeanors and farther c > directed the department to avoid the use of undercover agents, anonymotis tips, garbage searches, or knock-and- talks in the investigation of such crimes. The petitioners submitted their petitions to the city clerk who, pursuant to statutory requirements, reviewed the 1' _i -4- Committee received notice of the pending lawsuit. This is because the Committee is made up of three members, two of whom were named defendants in the original action, and the third member, the city clerk, was served with the original notice. Thus, the tnembers of the Objections Committee were on notice of the lawsuit within the 30 -day Statute of Limitations. The Objections Committee must have known, or should have known, that but for a "mistake" concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it. Finally, the other named defendants and the Objections Committee are represented by common counsel; the Iowa City Attorney's staff. The City and its counsel has always asserted the Objections Committee was the proper defendant. The Estate of Kuhns four - factor test has been satisfied. The amendment to add the Objections Committee as a party relates back to the original filing of the mandamus petition. The Objections Committee has had its opportunity to show how it would be prejudiced by allowing the amendment to relate back. No prejudice has been shown. This is particularly true because, unlike typical personal injury cases, the Plaintiffs could start all over again by obtaining sufficient voter signatures, and the same legal issues which are being litigated in this case could be litigated at some time in the future. It is in everyone's best interests to allow the amendment to relate back so the ultimate issue relating to the scope of the Objections Committee's powers under Iowa Code section 44.8 will be resolved. The Motion to Dismiss is overruled. The amendment to add the Objections Committee as a party defendant relates back to the filing of the original petition on August 30, 2001. Dated this day of October, 2004. C.+ �.�ERN ROBINSON, Judge, 61" Judicial District of Iowa J> Date: fAailed To: I �'VG�� -cary� •cam. - _: _ Y EY: - Cle k's Office re'sonMel Resilonsihle d for hV,,iling Document w 7 0 :J3 a 0 -J f—� i,_) NOTES ON GROUP FOUR DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES Karen Kubby, Facilitator Bill Sueppel, Recorder A. MAYOR 1. Comment that we do not have a mayor and that the mayor is so weak that it is not really like having a mayor, and the mayor should be elected at large. However, when asked what the individual would suggest as a strong mayor, the person indicated they had not thought it out. Generally, the persons feeling that the mayor should be elected at large wanted a stronger mayor because they felt that the city manager had too much power. 2. Assuming that we are going to retain the powers of the mayor as presently set out, which some people have described as "weak ", several of the people did not see what sense it made to elect the mayor at large. 3. The issue of increased voter turnout was raised, assuming that a spirited contest for mayor in the general election would increase the turnout. 4. Another opinion expressed that this seems to be working - why change it? 5. The Eric Shaw issue arose in the context that it was believed that if Iowa City had a strong mayor, the mayor would have responded in a more considerate manner to the issues raised in Eric Shaw's death. 6. The question of qualifications and experience arose, and the general consensus was that this could cut both ways. A qualified person may not be experienced, and an experienced person may not be qualified. On the other hand, there were some comments to the effect that getting to know the council members over a period of a year or twos meetings would give the council members a good sense of who could lead the city as mayor. B. DISTRICTS 1. Number at large and by district. 1 a. At first, there was some discussion that there should be as many district seats as possible, even up to five. b. There was also some discussion about why the city didn t have nine council members, but it appeared that almost all of the participants felt that seven was the proper number. C. In the end, it appeared that more of the people would opt for a three - district four at large if the three district council members were chosen by the people living in that district only. 2. Districts electing their own council member. a. One comment was that the whole situation in First Avenue was disgraceful in that the concern of the people living in First Avenue was washed away. The question was asked as to whether this was because of a weak representative from that district or whether the election of the council member from that district by the district voters only would have made a difference and, of course, there was no easy answer to that question. b. Another suggestion was that in areas where you have ethnic, economic or other types of a majority of people residing in the districts, there is a very strong belief that the council member should be elected only by the people in that district. The election of people at large dilutes the vote of people residing within a district. Two comments were made by one participant: We need a lot more politicking on the city council; and the second comment was that a small group of people in Iowa City actually make all of the decisions. C. Electing district council members by districts makes it possible for someone to run a less expensive campaign than having to campaign all over the city. d. The overwhelming preference in this group was to have the council member elected by the district, and the final sentiment of the group seemed to be that we should retain the three districts and four at- large, but that the three district members should be elected within the district. e. The present system is confusing, and many people do not know for sure who their district representative is. 2