HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-2005 Charter Review CommissionCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Friday, January 14, 2005
7:30 AM -9:00 AM
City Hall, Harvat Hall
410 East Washington Street
1. Approve Minutes
2. Public Comment
Receive correspondence
3. Review Public Hearing input from previous evening
4. Review Charter
5. Presentation to Council
6. Meeting Schedule
7 Old Business
8. Adjournment (9:00 AM)
REPORT OF THE IOWA CITY
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
1���loJ
(Cauhct� attd
C,�U (lA.lrot� 5.S I,I1ri�
The Commission and the Process. The Iowa City Charter Review Commission was
established by the Iowa City City Council in May of 2004. Created pursuant to Section
8.02 of the Iowa City Charter, the Commission was charged with "review[ing] the
existing Charter" and "recontinend[ing] any Charter amendments that it deems fit." The
Commission must be established by the City Council at least once every ten years.
Commission members were selected by the Council and include Chairperson William
Sueppel, Chair Pro tem Vicki Lensing, Andrew Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Nate Green,
Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, and Kevin Werner. In furtherance of its
charge the Commission began meeting in mid -May. The Commission has met over
twenty two (22) times for in excess of forty (40) hours. Citizens have had the
opportunity to participate in the process at every step. All meetings were posted and
open to the public, the Commission heard in- person citizen continents and accepted
written correspondence, and the Commission held two traditional public hearings and a
public meeting with interactive discussion. The Commission was aided in its work by the
invaluable contributions of Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney; Marian Karr, City Clerk; and
Laura Berardi, Minute Taker.
The Report. This Report is meant to provide the City Council and the public with a
substantive review of the Conunission's recommendations. It supplements the "red- line"
version of the Charter that was drafted by the City Attorney and sets forth the language of
the specific amendments. While the hope is that the Report will provide some details to
explain the Commission's recommendations, any document of this nature will necessarily
be somewhat incomplete. Accordingly, the Report itself should be supplemented with
the copious minutes taken of the Commission's meetings. Additionally, the Commission
remains available to address questions and issues that may arise during the Council's
review of its recommendations.
Explanations of Recommended Charter Amendments.
1. The recommendation to amend the definitions of "Ordinance" and
"Measure" is part of a larger recommendation to replace the term ordinance with
measure throughout Article VII. As currently written, Section 7.01(A)(3) defines
"ordinance" to include "all measures of a legislative nature ". However, in the
general definitions section of the Charter measure is defined more broadly than
ordinance and means "an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion." The
amendment is meant to both reconcile this inconsistency and make clear that
initiative and referendum are available with respect to, the more broadly defined,
measures rather than, the more narrowly defined, ordinances.
2. The recommendation to amend Section 2.03 is one of word preference.
The Commission thought the term "eligible elector" to be more clear and
understandable than the term "domiciliary."
3. The recommendation to amend Section 2.11(A) is meant to bring the
section into conformity with the State Code provision. There is no change in
meaning. Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires a majority
vote of all members of the Council, rather than simply a majority of the members
present.
4. The recommendation to delete Section 2.11(B) is meant to address
concerns that this section is inconsistent with State Code provisions regarding city
legislation. From a policy standpoint, the Commission also had concerns about
the broad power the section appeared to give the Council to present virtually any
matter to the electorate for a vote, thereby allowing the Council to avoid its
responsibility to legislate. Council has never used this provision.
5. The recommendation to amend Sections 2.12(B) and 4.04(A)(3)- .04(A)(4)
is meant to both clarify and formalize the City's current practice of having the
City Council take formal action to approve the City Manager's appointment of
either the Police Chief or the Fire Chief. In addition to past practice, this also has
support in existing state law. While some members of the public supported the
idea of having the City Council appoint the Police Chief instead of the City
Manager, the majority of the Commission did not support this idea. There was no
interest in extending this practice of approval to other city department heads.
6. The recommendations to amend Sections 3.01(A), 4.03 [Title], 4.04
[Title], 7.01(C)(1), 7.02(B), 7.04(A), 7.06(A), 7.06(B) are either typographical or
grammatical in nature.
7. The recommendation to amend Section 4.04(A)(5) is an acknowledgment
that it is not possible or advisable to have the City Manager "make" all of the
City's purchases, rather than simply supervising them.
8. There are two recommended amendments to Section 5.02. The
recommended replacement of the word "nominations" with "applications" is
meant to make the Charter more consistent with the City Council's current
practice for filling vacancies on Boards and Commissions whereby applicants
submit applications. The recommended change related to the removal of Board
and/or Commission members is meant simply to make the Charter more clearly
consistent with current state law and City practice.
9. The recommendation to amend Section 5.03 is meant to emphasize that
Boards are subject to open records requirements as well as open meetings
requirements, and that their by -laws should address both matters. This
amendment may require related changes in the by -laws of most City Boards.
10. The reconnnendation to amend Section 6.02 is to make it more clear and
readable.
2
11. The recommendation to amend Section 6.03 is meant to ensure the
Charter's use of the term "contribution" is consistent with existing state law
regarding campaign finances. Under state law a person's time may be a
"contribution" if it is provided on a collective basis by, for instance, a business or
union.
12. There are two recommended amendments to Section 7.01(B)(1). First, the
Commission recommends that 7.01(13)(1)(j) be amended to prohibit any initiative
or referendum affecting the city zoning ordinance including the maps of the
Comprehensive Plan and the district plan maps, regardless of the size of the tract
of property at issue. The Iowa Code sets out a very detailed process for amending
a city's zoning ordinance and related maps, including a public hearing,
consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and
super - majority requirements upon objections by property owners. There were
concerns that allowing the initiative and /or referendum process to be used to
effectively amend the zoning ordinance would be inconsistent with this statutory
scheme. From a policy standpoint, the Commission also determined it would be
more appropriate for such amendments to go through the public hearing process,
than through a petition and voting process. Second, the Commission recommends
that a new section 7.01(B)(1)(k) be added placing limitations on when public
improvements may be subject to initiative and referendum. The intent with this
recommendation is not to prohibit any initiative or referendum dealing with
public improvements, but to limit them to appropriate times, prior to certain
actions being taken which either significantly encumber city resources or create
burdens on private property owners who may be effected by a given project. The
term "public improvements" is defined in accordance with state law to refer to
building and construction work.
13. The Commission reconmrends the phrase "and any other information
required by City Council" be removed from Section 7.03(B). This language
allowed the City Council to require "any other information" it wanted to be
collected as part of the petition process for an initiative or referendum effort.
However, the language places no limitation on what other information could be
required and does not require that the information be demanded on all initiative or
referendum petitions. In essence, the language appeared to give the City Council
the ability to create significant obstacles for specific initiative or referendum
efforts. Though there is no evidence of the City Council ever requiring such
"other information" of particular petitioners, the Commission was concerned
about the potential for abuse through use of this language. Further, if the City
Council would like to require petitions to include information other than that
which is currently required by Section 7.03(B), it may use its power to amend this
section of the Charter. If that occurs, however, the requirements would at least be
applicable to all petitioners.
14. The recommendation to amend Section 7.04(C) clarifies the proper way
to request judicial review of the City Council's actions taken in conjunction with
3
Section 7.04(B), namely through writ of certiorari. We were advised that
purporting to confer jurisdiction on the district court by way of judicial review is
contrary to Iowa caselaw.
15. The Commission recommends that the sentence "The Council shall submit
to the voters any ordinance which has been proposed or referred in accordance
with the provisions of this Article unless the petition is deemed insufficient
pursuant to Section 7.04." be deleted because it is unnecessary, given other
language in the Charter, and may actually be confusing to some.
16. The amendments recommended for Section 7.05(B) are meant to clarify
when an initiative or referendum petition must be filed in order to be placed on a
particular ballot. Attached you will find an exhibit labeled "Charter Timelines ".
The timeline at the top of the page shows the maximum times currently provided
in the Charter for each step of the initiative and referendum process. The timeline
on the bottom of the page shows the actual timeline for a recently filed initiative.
As you can see, while the Charter provides 110 days for Clerk certification,
additional signatures, Clerk certification of the supplemental petition, and Council
consideration of a proposed initiative or referendum, in the example at the bottom
of the page that process was condensed into four days. In other words, because
there is no minimum amount of time prior to the deadline for ballot questions
within which a petition must be filed to get on that ballot, the process can be
squeezed if the Council so chooses. The changes made to Section 7.05(B) of the
Charter are proposed to address this problem and require that the vote on a
proposed or referred ordinance may be held at the regular City election or general
election in November only if the petition was filed sufficiently in advance of the
election to allow time for the Clerk's review and Council's consideration.
17. The amendments recommended for Sections 8.01(A) and 8.01(B),
changing the phrase "City election" to "special city election ", are meant to make
these sections consistent with current state law.
18. The amendments recommended for Sections 8.01(B) and 8.01(C),
referring to Iowa Code § 362.4, do not change the number of signatures a petition
to amend the charter must have in order to be valid. Rather, they make clear that
all aspects of section 362.4 must be met, in addition to the correct number of
signatures. The Commission also believes that referring to the appropriate code
section will help citizens to be better informed about all of the appropriate petition
requirements prior to beginning the petition process.
19. The amendments recommended for Section 8.02 attempt to make clear
that the Charter Review Commission makes its recommendations to the City
Council, and then the City Council may either submit the recommendations to the
voters or use its power, pursuant to Section 8.01(B), to adopt the
recommendations by ordinance.
4
Other Matters Considered. In addition to those matters discussed that led to the above
recommendations, the Commission also gave serious consideration to several issues that
did not lead to recommended amendments. Some of those issues are discussed below.
Numerous other issues were also discussed by the Commission and these discussions,
though not described here, are reflected in the Commission's meeting minutes.
1. Selection of the Mayor. The Commission spent considerable time
discussing the method used to select the mayor, both in its regular meetings and at
the interactive public meeting. Some concerns were raised with the current
process, including generally the secrecy of or lack of transparency in how the
Council Members choose the Mayor and the inability of members of the general
public to vote for a Mayor or otherwise participate in the process. In response to
these concerns the Commission considered an amendment to the Charter that
would have required that the Mayor be elected directly by the citizens. The
potential problems with such a change included the risk that someone could be
elected Mayor without any experience working on the Council and that a mayoral
election could degenerate into a popularity contest. In the end, the majority of the
Commission decided not to recommend an amendment to the Charter on this
issue, believing the current system, despite concerns, has worked well.
2. Term Limits. The Commission discussed term limits for the mayor and /or
council members. Some support for a limitation on the number of two -year terms
an individual could serve as mayor was voiced at the interactive public meeting.
Despite this support, the Commission decided against reconnnending any tern
limits be built into the Charter. The reasoning for this position was that, in a
representative government, the best and most appropriate term limitations come
through the voters electing candidates of their choice.
3. Number of Districts. The Commission discussed whether to amend the
Charter to change the number of council districts from three to four. The concern
presented was that the city's geographic and population growth had made the
existing districts too large to be manageable. No recommendation was made to
increase the number of districts, however, because the associated decrease in
geographic area and population represented by district council members would
have been relatively small. Also, there was a preference to maintain the current
majority of council members being at- large.
4. Election of District Council Members. The Commission spent a great deal
of time discussing the current system for electing district council members and the
fact that only residents of the district may vote in a district primary but all voters
may vote on the district in the general election. An amendment was considered
that would have allowed only residents of a particular district to vote in that
general election district race. In support of this amendment was the idea that it
would alleviate voter confusion over the current system and it may also engender
stronger connections between the district electorate and the district -only council
members. The majority of the Commission did not recommend such an
5
amendment, though, because of a concern that it might promote parochialism
among districts and a positive recognition that the current system affords each
citizen to claim a stake in all seven council races. There also were concerns from
some Commission members about the possibility that, if a change was made, a
district council member elected by and representing only a third of the city could
end up being selected by the City Council as mayor.
5. Voting Systems. The Commission spent some time discussing various
alternative voting systems that attempt to eliminate costly primaries and allow
consideration to be given to a voter's second choice, in the case of a failure of one
candidate to secure a majority. No amendments relative to these systems were
recommended, however, due to concerns about whether they would be
permissible given existing state law.
6. Petition Requirements for Initiative/Referendum and Charter
Amendments. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by qualified
electors equal in number to at least twenty -five percent (25 %) of the number of
persons voting in the prior city election but may have no fewer than twenty five
hundred (2500) signatures. Charter amendment petitions must be signed by
eligible electors equal in number to ten percent (10 %) of those voting in the prior
city election. The Commission discussed concerns that either or both of these
thresholds were too low and the potential inconsistency of having the threshold be
lower for amending the Charter than for simply adopting an initiative or
referendum. Regarding the threshold for charter amendment petitions, this
number is specifically dictated by the State Code and should not be changed.
Regarding the threshold for initiative and referendum petitions, the Commission
examined voter turnout in prior elections and determined that in most cases the
twenty -five percent (25 %) number was not used because it would have been less
than the twenty five hundred (2500) signature limitation. Further, the relatively
low threshold for signatures is mitigated by the fact that those signing the
petitions must be qualified electors, rather than eligible electors. Accordingly, the
Commission did not recommend changes to the petition requirements.
7. Diversity on the Charter Commission. The Commission received public
comment on and discussed the diversity of the Charter Commission and whether
its members were as representative of the community as may have been possible.
While noting diversity may be defined in a number of different ways and the
diversity of any appointed group is contingent upon the field of applicants, the
Commission acknowledges that having as diverse a Charter Commission as
possible is a laudable goal. Not only does a diverse Charter Commission ensure
representation throughout the community, it also better promotes adoption of
charter amendments that reflect the current needs of an ever - changing citizenry.
While the Commission does not recommend any specific charter amendments to
address this issue, it does encourage the City Council to be mindful of the
importance of diversity on the Charter Commission, both when making
appointments and when soliciting applications.
6
Creation of a Citizens' Guide to the Charter. In the Commission members' numerous
collective discussions with members of the public it appeared that a significant
percentage of citizen concerns are based on an apparent or perceived lack of
transparency. Citizens want to know how their government works, want to know what in
their government is working, and how they can help their government to work better. All
of these are especially true for local governments. To this end, the Commission
respectfully recommends the City create a Citizens' Guide to the Iowa City Charter.
Such a document could clarify, supplement and explain specific provisions of the
Charter, especially those provisions that may be of particular interest to community
activists and ordinary citizens alike. As such, the Citizens' Guide would assist those
using it in better understanding and participating in our City's system of government.
The Commission recommends this Citizens' Guide be drafted by City staff and made
generally available to members of the public at the City Clerk's Office and on the City's
Website.
Conclusion. The Commission has appreciated and thoroughly enjoyed this opportunity
to review the Iowa City City Charter and it is pleased to present its recommendations to
the City Council for consideration and action. While there was not unanimity on every
issue, the recommendations as a whole come to the City Council upon the unanimous
vote of the Commission. Pursuant to Section 8.02 of the Charter, the City Council may
either adopt the Commission's recommended amendments by ordinance or may put them
on the ballot for consideration by the voters of Iowa City. The Commission recommends
the City Council adopt the proposed Charter Amendments by ordinance.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of January, 2005.
IOWA CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
By:
William F. Sueppel, Clrair r n
On behalf of Commission Members:
Chair Pro tern Vicki Lensing
Andrew Chappell
Penny Davidsen
Nate Green
Karen Kubby
Naomi Novick
Lynn Rowat
Kevin Werner
7