Loading...
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