HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-8-2014 Charter Review CommissionTHE PUBLIC IS INVITED TED TO rp,TTt_;'I>` ALL MEETINGS
C. i' Oitlt Off',
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
7:30 AM — 8:30 AM
Helling Conference Room, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
1. Introductions
2. Future meeting schedule
Regular meeting days and times
Summer Schedule
3. Select Chair Pro tem
4. Distribution of Materials
Past Commission minutes
Final reports to the City Council
Original Charter and the current Charter
Citizens Guide to the Charter
5. General Overview of Charter
6. Structure
Identification of Issues
Public input process
Correspondence
Website
7. Adjournment (8:30 AM)
Congratulations on your appointment to the Charter Review Commission. We look forward to
working with you on the review process.
Attached is the agenda for the organizational meeting scheduled for April 8 at 7:30 AM. During
this meeting we will be discussing the future meeting schedule. Based on the information
provided we are looking at the second and fourth Tuesday mornings for regular meetings.
Please check your calendars and come prepared to discuss the proposed schedule and any
extended absences you may have scheduled, especially the upcoming summer months.
A general information contact sheet is enclosed and we ask that you complete it and bring to the
April 8 meeting.
A binder will be prepared for you and distributed at the meeting containing:
• Past Commission minutes
• Final reports to the City Council
• Original Charter and the current Charter
• Citizens Guide to the Charter
Again, thanks for your interest in this Commission and we look forward to working with you in
the coming year.
CONTACT INFORMATION
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
Name:
Contact
E -mail:
If you have questions, please contact City Cleric Marian Karr
at 366 -6041
Return at April 8 Commission meeting.
Late Handouts — Handed out at 4/8/14 meeting
Definitions
Article I. Powers Of The City
§ 1.01.
Powers Of The City.
§ 1.02.
Construction.
§ 1.03.
Savings Clause.
Article II. City Council
§ 2.01.
Composition.
§ 2.02.
Division Into Council Districts.
§ 2.03.
Eligibility..
§ 2.04.
Terms.
§ 2.05.
Compensation.
§ 2.06.
Mayor.
§ 2.07.
General Powers And Duties.
§ 2.08.
Appointments.
§ 2.09.
Rules; Records.
§ 2.10.
Vacancies.
§ 2.11.
Council Action.
§ 2.12.
Prohibitions.
Article Ill. Nomination, Primary Election And Regular Election
§ 3.01. Nomination.
§ 3.02. Primary Election.
§ 3.03. Regular City Election.
Article IV. City Manager
§ 4.01.
Appointment; Qualifications.
§ 4.02.
Accountability; Removal.
§ 4.03.
Absence; Disability Of City Manager.
§ 4.04.
Duties Of City Manager.
§ 4.05.
Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts.
1. The home rule charter of the city, adopted by the voters of the city on November 15, 1973,
and by ordinance 76 -2792 on January 2, 1976, pursuant to I.C.A. section 372.9, is set out herein
as adopted and amended.
Iowa City
Article V. Boards, Commissions And Committees
§ 5.01. Establishment.
§ 5.02. Appointment; Removal.
§ 5.03. Rules.
Article VI. Campaign Contributions And Expenditures
§ 6.01. Limitations On The Amount Of Campaign Contributions.
§ 6.02. Disclosure Of Contributions And Expenditures.
§ 6.03. Definition.
§ 6.04. Violations.
Article VII. Initiative And Referendum
§ 7.01. General Provisions.
§ 7.02. Commencement Of Proceedings, Affidavit.
§ 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures.
§ 7.04. Procedure After Filing.
§ 7.05. Action On Petitions.
§ 7.06. Results Of Election.
§ 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of Stricter Conditions Or Require-
ments.
Article Vlll. Charter Amendments And Review
§ 8.01. Charter Amendments.
§ 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
Iowa City
The citizens of Iowa City, Iowa, by virtue of the enactment of this charter,
adopt the following principles:
1. That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the
responsibility foi it.
2. That the government of Iowa City is a service institution, responsive and
accountable to its ciizens.
3. That city officials s=hould be accessible to the people and have an
affirmative obligation to ,,cure for each person equality of opportunity as well
as due process and equai protection of law.
4. That each citizen has a rictrt to obtain fair, equal, and courteous treatment
from each city official and employee.
5. That the city should perform ail acts and take all measures necessary and
desirable to promote the general health, safety and welfare of its residents, to
encourage the participation of its citizens in policy formation and to secure the
full benefits of "home rule." (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
DEFINITIONS
As used in this charter:
1. "City" means the city of Iowa City, Iowa.
2. "City council' or "council' means the governing hody of the city.
3. "Councilmember" means a member of the council, including the mayor.
4. "Shall' imposes a duty.
5. "Must' states a requirement.
6. "May" confers a power.
7. "Eligible elector" means a person eligible to register to vote ii Iowa City.
8. "Qualified elector" means a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote
in Iowa City.
Iowa City
9. "Board" includes a board, commission, committee or other simile;: entity
however designated.
10. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company,
association, political party, committee or any other legal entity.
11. "Ordinance" means a city law of a general and permaner; nature.
12. "Measure ", except as provided in article VII, me l4is an ordinance,
amendment, resolution or motion. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -1976; amd. Ord.
85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985; Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 1.01. Powers Of The City.
The city has all powers possible under thr� constitution and laws of this state.
(Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
Section 1.02. Construction.
The grant of power to the city undr this charter is intended to be broad; the
mention of a specific power in this charter is not intended to be a limitation on
the general powers conferred it this article. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
Section 1.03. Savings Clr -oise.
If any provision of this cl- rter, or the application of this charter to any person
or circumstance is helc nvalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions
or applications of this �.,harter. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL
Section 2.0 . Composition.
The city council consists of seven members. As provided in article III, four, to
be known as councilmembers at large, are to be nominated by eligible electors
Iowa City
of the city at large, and three, to be known as district councilmembers, are to
be nominated by eligible electors of their respective districts. All
councilmembers shall be elected by the qualified electors of the city at large.
(Ord. 85 -3273, 12 -17 -1985)
Section 2.02. Division Into Council Districts.
The council, by ordinance, shall divide the city into three council districts of
substantially equal population. These districts are to be designated as council
district A, council district B, and council district C. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
Section 2.03. Eligibility.
To be eligible to be elected
be an eligible elector of to
council district, must be
05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 2.04. Terms.
to and to retain a council position, a person must
✓a City, and if seeking or elected to represent a
n eligible elector of that council district. (Ord.
At the first election under this charter, all seven councilmembers are to be
elected; the councilmember from council district A, council district C, and the
two councilmembers at large who receive the greatest number of votes cast
for councilmember at large are to serve for terms of four years, and other
councilmembers are to serve for terms of two years. Commencing at the next
regular city election, and at all subsequent regular city elections, all
councilmembers elected to fill the positions of those whose terms expire shall
be elected for terms of four years. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
Section 2.05. Compensation.
The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the mayor and
the other council members. The council shall not adopt such an ordinance
during the months of November and December immediately following a regular
city election. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the beginning of the terms of councilmembers elected
at the regular city election, the council shall meet and elect from among its
Iowa City
members the mayor and mayor pro tem for a term of two years. (Ord. 85 -3227,
3 -12 -1985)
B. The mayor is a voting member of the council, the official representative of
the city, presiding officer of the council and its policy spokesperson. The
mayor shall present to the city no later than February 28 an annual state of the
city message. (Ord. 95 -3671, 3 -28 -1995)
C. The mayor pro tem shall act as mayor during the absence of the mayor.
(Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
Section 2.07. General Powers And Duties.
All powers of the city are vested in the council, except as otherwise provided
by state law or this charter. (Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. The council shall appoint the city manager.
B. The council shall appoint the city clerk. (Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
C. The council shall appoint the city attorney. (Ord. 95 -3671, 3 -28 -1995)
D. The council shall appoint all members of the city's boards, except as
otherwise provided by state law. (Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
E. The council shall fix the amount of compensation, if any, of persons it
appoints and shall provide for the method of compensation of other city
employees. All appointments and promotions of city employees by city council
and city manager must be made according to job - related criteria and be
consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards
established pursuant to law. (Ord. 95 -3671, 3 -28 -1995)
Section 2.09. Rules; Records.
The council may determine its own rules and shall maintain records of its
proceedings consistent with state law. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
Iowa City
Section 2.10. Vacancies.
The council shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective city office as provided
by state law. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
Section 2.11. Council Action.
Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires a majority vote of
all the members of the council except as otherwise provided by state law.
(Ord. 05 -4152; 3 -1- 2005),
Section 2.12. Prohibitions.
A. A councilmember may not hold any other city office or be a city employee
or elected county official while serving on the council nor hold any
remunerated city office or employment for at least one year after leaving the
council. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
B. With the exception of the appointment of the chief of the police department
and chief of the fire department, which are subject to approval of the city
council, neither the council nor its members may dictate, in any manner, the
appointment or removal of any person appointed by the city manager.
However, the council may express its views to the city manager pertaining to
the appointment or removal of such employee. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
C. A councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or direction of any
person appointed by or under the control of the city manager. (Ord. 76 -2792,
1 -2 -1976)
ARTICLE III. NOMINATION, PRIMARY ELECTION AND
REGULAR ELECTION
Section 3.01. Nomination.
A. An eligible elector of a council district may become a candidate for a council
district seat by filing with the city clerk a valid petition requesting that his or
her name be placed on the ballot for that office. The petition must be filed not
more than sixty -five (65) days nor less than forty (40) days before the date of
the election and must be signed by eligible electors from the candidate's
district equal in number to at least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the
Iowa City
same office at the last regular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons.
(Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
B. An eligible elector of the city may become a candidate for an at -large
council seat by filing with the city clerk a petition requesting that the
candidate's name be placed on the ballot for that office. The petition must be
filed not more than sixty -five (65) days nor less than forty (40) days before the
date of the election and must be signed by eligible electors equal in number
to at least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the same office at the last
regular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 85 -3227,
3 -12 -1985)
Section 3.02. Primary Election.
A. If there are more than two candidates for a council district seat, a primary
election must be held for that seat with only the qualified electors of that
council district eligible to vote. The names of the two candidates who receive
the highest number of votes in the primary election are to be placed on the
ballot for the regular city election as candidates for that council seat. (Ord.
05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
B. If there are more than twice as many candidates as there are at large
positions to be filled, there shall be a primary election held unless the council,
by ordinance, chooses to have a run - off - election. (Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
Section 3.03. Regular City Election.
A. In the regular city election, each council district seat up for election shall be
listed separately on the ballot and only the names of candidates nominated
from that council district shall be listed on the ballot as candidates for that
seat. However, all qualified electors of the city shall be entitled to vote for each
candidate. The three council district seats shall be designated on the ballot as
council district A, council district B and council district C and each shall be
elected at large.
B. The at large council seats shall be designated on the ballot as such. (Ord.
85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
Iowa City
ARTICLE IV. CITY MANAGER
Section 4.01. Appointment; Qualifications.
In appointing a city manager, the council shall consider only the qualifications
and fitness of the person without regard to political or other affiliation. During
his or her tenure the city manager shall reside within the city. (Ord. 76 -2792, \
1 -2 -1976)
Section 4.02. Accountability; Removal.
A. The city manager is under the direction and supervision of the council and
holds office at its pleasure. Unless otherwise provided by contract, a city
manager removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay of not
less than two months' salary, computed from the date of the resolution of
removal.
B. Upon the resignation or removal, of the city manager, the council shall
appoint an individual qualified to perform the duties of city manager to serve
at the pleasure of council or until a city manager is appointed. (Ord. 76 -2792,
1 -2 -1976)
Section 4.03. Absence; Disability Of City Manager.
The city manager may designate a qualified city employee as acting city
manager to perform his or her duties during a temporary absence or disability.
If the city manager does not make such a designation, the council shall
appoint a qualified city employee to perform the duties of the city manager
until he or she returns. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
Section 4.04. Duties Of City Manager.
A. The city manager shall be chief administrative officer of the city and shall:
(1) Insure that the laws of the city are executed and enforced.
(2) Supervise and direct the administration of city government and the
official conduct of employees of the city appointed by the city manager
including their employment, training, reclassification, suspension or
discharge as the occasion requires, subject to state law.
Iowa City
(3) Appoint the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire
department with the approval of the city council.
(4) Supervise the chief of the police department and chief of the fire
department, including their suspension or discharge as the occasion
requires. Such supervision shall not be subject to approval of the city
council.
(5) Appoint or employ persons to occup} isitions for which no other
method of appointment is provided by state law or this charter.
(6) Supervise the administration of the city personnel system, including the
determination of the compensation of all city employees appointed by
the city manager subject to state law or this charter.
(7) Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the
city, supervise all purchases of materials and supplies, and assure that
such materials and supplies are received and are of specified quality
and character.
(8) Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and
undertakings of the city, and all city- ov�ned property including buildings,
plants, systems, and enterprises, and trave charge of their construction,
improvement, repair and maintenance except where otherwise provided
by state law.
(9) Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans,
drawings, specifications and estimates for the city.
(10) Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and permits
authorized by state law or city ordinance and cause a record thereof to
be maintained.
(11) Prepare and submit to the council the annual budgets in the form
prescribed by state law.
(12) Provide the council an itemized written monthly financial report.
(13) Attend council meetings and keep the council fully advised of the
financial and other conditions of the city and its needs.
(14) See that the business affairs of the city are transacted in an efficient
manner and that accurate records of all city business are maintained
and made, available to the public, except as otherwise provided by state
law.
Iowa City
(15) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and professional
assistance to boards within limitations of the budget.
(16) Perform such other and further duties as the council may direct. (Ord.
05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
B. The city manager, in performing the foregoing duties, may:
(1) Present recommendations and programs to the council and participate in
any discussion by the council of any matters pertaining to the duties of
the city manager.
(2) Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs of any department
or the conduct of any employee under supervision of the city manager.
(3) Execute contracts on behalf of the city when authorized by the council.
(Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
Section 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts.
Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the city manager shall not take part
in any election of councilmembers. This prohibition shall in no way limit the city
manager's duty to make available public records as provided by state law or
this charter. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
ARTICLE V. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Section 5.01. Establishment.
With the exception of the police citizens review board, the council may establish
boards in addition to those required by state law and shall specify the title,
duties, length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters.
The council may reduce or increase a board's duties, transfer duties from one
board to another or dissolve any board, except as otherwise provided by state
law or this charter.
A. There shall be a permanent police citizens review board, which shall have
vested in it the following minimum powers:
1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing
citizens' views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City police
December 2007
Iowa City
department, and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices,
and procedures to the city council;
2. To investigate citizen claims of misconduct by sworn police officers and to
issue independent reports of its findings to the city council; and
3. The authority to subpoena witnesses. (Res. 07 -262, 8 -31 -2007)
Section 5.02. Appointment; Removal.
The council shall, subject to the requirements of state law, seek to provide
broad representation on all boards. The council shall establish procedures to
give at least thirty days' notice of vacancies before they are filled and shall
encourage applications by citizens. Council procedures for the removal of
members shall be consistent with state law. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 5.03. Rules.
A. The council shall establish rules and procedures for the operation of all
boards, which must include but are not limited to, the adoption of by -laws and
rules pertaining to open meetings and open records. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
B. The council shall specify, for each board, methods for informal and formal
communication with council, time schedules for the completion of reports
requested by council and such rules as it deems appropriate.
C. A board may establish additional rules and procedures that are consistent
with state law, council rules, and this charter. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
ARTICLE VI. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
AND EXPENDITURES
Section 6.01. Limitations On The Amount Of Campaign Contributions.
The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the amount of
campaign contributions made to a candidate for election to council by a person
as defined in this charter. (Ord. 95 -3671, 3 -28 -1995)
December 2007
Iowa City
Section 6.02. Disclosure Of Contributions And Expenditures.
The council, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring the disclosure of
the amount, source and kind of contributions received and expenditures made
by (1) each candidate for election to council and (2) any and all other persons,
for the purpose of aiding or securing the candidate's nomination or election.
(Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 6.03. Definition.
Within this article "contribution" shall be defined as that term is defined in
chapter 56 ('campaign finance ") of the code of Iowa. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
December 2007
Iowa City
Section 6.04. Violations.
The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe: (1) penalties for the violation of the
contribution limitations and disclosure requirements it establishes pursuant to
this section; and (2) when appropriate, conditions for the revocation of a
candidate's right to serve on council if elected, consistent with state law. (Ord.
05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 7.01. General Provisions.
A. Authority.
(1) Initiative. The qualified electors have the right to propose measures to
the council and, if the council fails to adopt a measure so proposed
without any change in substance, to have the measure submitted to the
voters at an election.
(2) Referendum. The qualified electors have the right to require
reconsideration by the council of an existing measure and, if the council
fails to repeal such measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an
election.
(3) Definition. Within this article, "measure" means all ordinances,
amendments, resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however
designated, which (a) are of a permanent rather than temporary
character and (b) include a proposition enacting, amending or repealing
a new or existing law, policy or plan, as opposed to one providing for
the execution or administration of a law, policy or plan already enacted
by council.
B. Limitations.
(1) Subject Matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall not extend
to any of the following:
(a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature.
(b) The city budget.
(c) The appropriation of money.
Iowa city
(d) The levy of taxes or special assessments.
(e) The issuance of general obligation and revenue bonds.
(f) The letting of contracts.
(g) Salaries of city employees.
(h) Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law.
(i) Amendments to this charter.
(j) Amendments affecting the city zoning ordinance or the land use
maps of the comprehensive plan, including the district plan maps.
(k) Public improvements subsequent to city council action to authorize
acquisition of property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders
for that public improvement, whichever occurs earlier. "Public
improvement" shall mean any building or construction work.
(2) Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall be filed within
two years after the same measure or a measure substantially the same
has been submitted to the voters at an election.
(3) Council Repeal, Amendment And Reenactment. No measure proposed
by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the council without
submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant to this
article, may for two years thereafter be repealed or amended except by
a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original
initiative measure. No measure referred by referendum petition and
repealed by the vote of the council without submission to the voters, or
repealed by the voters pursuant to this article, may be reenacted for
two years thereafter except by vote of the people, unless provision is
otherwise made in the original referendum petition.
C. Construction.
(1) Scope Of Power. It is intended that this article confer broad initiative
and referendum powers upon the qualified electors of the city.
(2) Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid
because it repeals an existing measure in whole or in part by virtue of
proposing a new measure and (b) an initiative petition may amend an
existing measure.
Iowa City
(3) Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal a
measure in whole or in part.
D. Effect Of Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition
does not suspend or invalidate any measure under consideration. Such
measure shall remain in full force and effect until its amendment or repeal by
council pursuant to section 7.05A or until a majority of the qualified electors
voting on a measure vote to repeal or amend the measure and the vote is
certified.
E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing
measure in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the
city, its agencies or any person in reliance on the measure during the time it
was in effect. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 7.02. Commencement Of Proceedings; Affidavit.
A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors, hereinafter referred to as
the "petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing
with the city clerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the
petition and will be responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names
and addresses and specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to
be sent, and setting out in full the proposed initiative measure or citing the
measure sought to be reconsidered.
B. Affidavit. The city clerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face it
appears to have signatures of one or more qualified electors. The city clerk
shall issue the appropriate petition forms to the petitioners the same day the
affidavit is accepted for filing. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and
have available to the public, forms and affidavits suitable for the
commencement of proceedings and the preparation of initiative and
referendum petitions. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures.
A. Number Of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed
by qualified electors equal in number to at least twenty -five percent of the
number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, but such
signatures shall be no fewer than two thousand five hundred qualified electors.
Any petition that does not, on its face, contain the minimum required
signatures defined herein shall be deemed insufficient for filing under this
article, and no supplementary petition shall be permitted.. (Ord. 90 -3462,
6 -26 -1990)
Iowa City
B. Form And Content. All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be
substantially uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one
instrument. Each person signing shall provide, and the petition form shall
provide space for, the signature, printed name, address of the person signing
and the date the signature is executed. The form shall also provide space for
the signer's birthdate, but a failure to enter a birthdate shall not invalidate a
signer's signature. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have
attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the measure
proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the city clerk
need have attached to it only one copy of the measure being proposed or
referred.
C. Affidavit Of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must
have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a qualified elector
certifying: the number of signatures on the paper, that he or she personally
circulated it, that all signatures were affixed in his or her presence, that he or
she believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they
purport to be and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read
the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any person
filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by state
law. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
D. Time For Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an initiative petition must
be secured and the petition filed within six months after the date the affidavit
required under section 7.02A was filed. (Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
E. Time For Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed
within sixty days after final adoption by the council of the measure sought to
be reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more than two years after such
final adoption. The signatures on a referendum petition must be secured
during the sixty days after such final adoption; however, if the petition is filed
more than two years after final adoption, the signatures must be secured
within six months after the date the affidavit required under section 7.02A was
filed. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
F. Revocation Of Signature. Prior to the time a petition is filed with the city
clerk, a signatory may revoke his or her signature for any reason by filing with
the city clerk a statement of his or her intent to revoke his or her signature.
After a petition is filed a signatory may not revoke his or her signature. The
city clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms
suitable for the revocation of petition signatures. (Ord. 85 -3227, 3 -12 -1985)
Iowa City
Section 7.04. Procedure After Filing
A. Certificate Of City Clerk; Amendment. Within twenty days after a petition is
filed which contains the minimum required signatures, as set forth in section
7.03.A above, the city clerk shall complete a certificate as to the petition's
sufficiency. If the petition is insufficient, the clerk's certificate shall specify the
particulars wherein the petition is defective. The clerk shall also promptly send
a copy of the certificate to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified
insufficient may be amended once, provided, however, that one or more of the
original petitioners files a notice of intention to amend the original petition.
Such notice must be filed with the city clerk within two days after receiving a
copy of the certificate, and the petitioner also must file a supplementary
petition upon additional papers within fifteen days after receiving a copy of
such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall comply with the
requirements of subsections B and C of section 7.03. Within fifteen days after
a supplementary petition is filed, the city clerk shall complete a certificate as
to the sufficiency of the petition, as amended and supplemented, and shall
promptly send a copy of such certificate to the petitioners by registered mail,
as in the case of an original petition. If a petition or amended petition is
certified sufficient, or if the petition or amended petition is certified insufficient
and one or more of the petitioners do not request council review under
subsection B of this section within the time prescribed, the city clerk shall
promptly present the certificate to the council.
B. Council Review. If a petition has been certified insufficient by the city clerk
and one or more of the petitioners do not file notice of intention to amend it,
or if an amended petition has been certified insufficient by the city clerk, one
or more of the petitioners may, within two days after receiving a copy of such
certificate, file with the city clerk a request that it be reviewed by the council.
The council shall review the certificate at its next meeting following the filing
of such a request, but not later than thirty days after the filing of the request
for review, and shall rule upon the sufficiency of the petition.
C. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the council's
actions shall be by writ of certiorari. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
D. Validity Of Signatures. A petition shall be deemed sufficient for the
purposes of this article if it contains valid signatures in the number prescribed
by section 7.03 and is timely filed, even though the petition may contain one
or more invalid signatures. A signature shall be deemed valid unless it is not
the genuine signature of the qualified elector whose name it purports to be, or
it was not voluntarily and knowingly executed. A valid signature need not be
in the identical form in which the qualified elector's name appears on the
voting rolls, nor may a signature be deemed invalid because the address
accompanying the name on the petition is different from the address for the
Iowa City
same name on the current voting rolls if the qualified elector's birth date is
provided and is shown on the voting rolls. (Ord. 95 -3671, 3 -28 -1995)
Section 7.05. Action On Petitions.
A. Action By Council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been
determined sufficient, the council shall promptly consider the proposed
initiative measure or reconsider the referred measure. If the council fails to
adopt a proposed initiative measure and fails to adopt a measure which is
similar in substance within sixty days, or if the council fails to repeal the
referred measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally
determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or referred measure to the
qualified electors of the city as hereinafter prescribed. If at anytime more than
thirty days before a scheduled initiative or referendum election the council
adopts the proposed initiative measure or adopts a measure which is similar
in substance or if the council repeals a referred measure, the initiative or
referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred measure
shall not be submitted to the voters.
B. Submission To Voters.
(1) Initiative. The vote of the city on a proposed measure shall be held at
the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs
more than forty days after the expiration of the sixty day period
provided for consideration in section 7.05A, provided that the initiative
petition was filed no less than 110 days prior to the deadline imposed
by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner
of elections.
(2) Referendum. The vote of the city on a referred measure shall be held
at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs
more than forty days after the expiration of the thirty day period
provided for reconsideration in section 7.05A, provided that the
referendum petition was filed no less than 80 days prior to the deadline
imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the
commissioner of elections. The council may provide for a special
referendum election on a referred measure any time more than 120
days after the filing of the referendum petition with the city clerk.
C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred measure shall be made available
to the qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the city's
expense in the manner required for "questions" in section 376.5 of the Iowa
Code. The subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed measure
shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Iowa City
Section 7.06. Results Of Election.
A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed
initiative measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon
certification of the election results. The adopted measure shall be treated in
all respects in the same manner as measures of the same kind adopted by the
council, except as provided in section 7.01B(3). If conflicting measures are
approved by majority vote at the same election, the one receiving the greatest
number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict.
B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred
measure vote in favor of repealing the measure, it shall be considered
repealed upon certification of the election results. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of Stricter Conditions Or
Requirements.
The council may not set, except by charter amendment, conditions or
requirements affecting initiative and referendum which are higher or more
stringent than those imposed by this charter. (Ord. 76 -2792, 1 -2 -1976)
ARTICLE VIII. CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW
Section 8.01. Charter Amendments.
This charter may be amended only by one of the following methods:
A. The council, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the voters
at a special city election, and the proposed amendment becomes effective
when approved by a majority of those voting.
B. The council, by ordinance, may amend the charter. However, within thirty
(30) days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid under the
provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa is filed with the council, the
council must submit the amending ordinance to the voters at a special city
election, and the amendment does not become effective until approved by a
majority of those voting.
C. If a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa
is filed with the council proposing an amendment to the charter, the council
must submit the proposed amendment to the voters at a special city election,
Iowa City
and the amendment becomes effective if approved by a majority of those
voting. (Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Section 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
The council, using the procedures prescribed in article V, shall establish a
charter review commission at least once every ten years following the effective
date of this charter. The commission, consisting of at least nine members,
shall review the existing charter and may, within twelve months recommend
any charter amendments that it deems fit to the council. The council shall
either exercise its power of amendment pursuant to section 8.0113 of the
charter on a matter recommended by the commission or submit such
amendments to the voters in the form prescribed by the commission, and an
amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting.
(Ord. 05 -4152, 3 -1 -2005)
Iowa City
The home
rule charter is set out in this volume as adopted by the voters on
November
15, 1973, and by ordinance
76 -2792, on January 2, 1976. The
following table
shows the disposition of amendments
to the charter:
Ordinance
Number
Date
Disposition
77 -2826
3 -15 -1977
6.01
77 -2858
9 -6 -1977
7.0513
77 -2864
9 -6 -1977
3.01
85 -3227
3 -12 -1985
Definitions 7,8, 2.01, 2.03,
2.05 -2.08, 3.01 -3.03, 4.04, 5.02,
6.04, 7.01 -7.05, 8.01, 8.02
85 -3228
3 -12 -1985
6.02
85 -3273
12 -17 -1985
2.01
90 -3462
6 -26 -1990
7.03A, 7.04A
95 -3671
3 -28 -1995
2.0613, 2.08C,E, 3.01A, 6.01, 7.04D
05 -4152
3.1 -2005
Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2.05, 2.11,
2.1213, 3.01A, 3.02A, 4.04A, 5.02,
5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.01, 7.02,
7.03B,C,E, 7.04A,B,C, 7.05, 7.06,
8.01, 8.02
Res. 07 -262
8 -31 -2007
5.01
December 2007
Iowa city
L• Y � _ ri1�l��JYI
IOWA CITY
HOME RULE CHARTER
December 2007
CITIZEN GUIDE TO THE IOWA CITY HOME RULE CHARTER
Table of Contents
Disclaimers............................................................................................ ..............................1
Introduction to the City's Home Rule Charter ....................... ..............................1
What is a Home Rule Charter? ....................................................................................... ..............................1
Where can a copy of Iowa City's Charter be found ........................................... ..............................1
What must a Charter contain? ....................................................................................... ..............................1
What is a Charter Review Commission? ........................................................................ ..............................2
Whatis meant by "Home Rule"? ................................................................................... ..............................2
Iowa City's Form of Government ........................................... ............................... 2
How is the City government organized? ....................................................................... ............................... 2
What is the make up of the City Council? ................................. ............................... ............................... 2
How is the Mayor selected and what are Mayor's duties? ............................................ ............................... 3
How does one become a candidate for Council? ......................................................... ............................... 3
What is the relationship between the City Council and the Mayor ....................... ..............................3
Does the Charter address the hiring of City employees? ............................................... ..............................3
What does the Charter say about Boards and Commissions? ....................................... ..............................3
What does the Charter say about the campaign contribution limitations? ...................... ..............................4
The Charter Amendment Process ........................................... ..............................4
How can the Home Rule Charter be amended? ............................................................. ..............................3
What is the process by which a citizen may petition to change the Charter? ................ ..............................4
How does the amendment process begin? .................................................................... ..............................A
What is the role of the City Clerk? ................................................................................ ............................... 5
How can someone object to a petition to amend the Charter that has been accepted for filing by the City
Clerk? .............................................................................................................................. ..............................5
What happens if an objection is filed? ............................................................................ ..............................5
How can a decision of the Objections Committee be challenged? ................................ ..............................5
When will the election on the Charter amendment occur? .......................................... ............................... 5
Initiatives and Referendums ................................................... ..............................6
What are initiatives and referendums? ........................................................................ ............................... 6
What are the subject matter limits on initiatives and referendums? ............................ ............................... 6
What should I do if I'm not sure whether my proposal can be an initiative or referendum ? ....................... 6
How is the initiative or referendum process started? ................................................... ............................... 7
What is the "affidavit" and who must sign it? ............................................................... ............................... 7
Wheredoes the affidavit go? ....................................................................................... ............................... 7
What is the "petition" and how many signatures are necessary? ................................ ............................... 7
What are the deadlines for gathering signatures and filing the petition? .................... ............................... 8
What happens after the petition is filed with the City Clerk? ....................................... ............................... 8
What does the Council do with a petition that has been found to be sufficient? ......... ............................... 8
When is the election held for an initiative and referendum? ....................................... ............................... 9
How many votes are required for an initiative or referendum question to pass? ........ ............................... 9
ADDENDUM: Timelines for Initiative and Referendum
ii
CITIZEN GUIDE TO THE IOWA CITY HOME RULE CHARTER
December 4, 2007
Disclaimers.
This Citizen Guide is designed to provide citizens with basic information on the Charter. It is not
an exhaustive explanation of Home Rule charters in general or the City's Home Rule Charter
specifically. The Citizen Guide has been prepared by the City Attorney and is based on the law
applicable at the time of its writing. This Citizen Guide is not intended to be considered - nor
relied upon - as legal advice by a citizen wishing to file a petition to amend the Charter or to
launch an initiative or referendum campaign. It is meant to be a user friendly guide to help
citizens better understand their charter.
INTRODUCTION TO THE CITY'S HOME RULE CHARTER
What is a Home Rule Charter?
Iowa law (section 372.1 of the Code of Iowa)' allows cities to choose from among eight (8)
possible forms of municipal government, one of which is a Home Rule Charter. The Charter
itself is an ordinance that sets forth how the city government is structured. On November 15,
1973, the citizens of Iowa City ( "City ") chose to be governed by a Home Rule Charter, and the
first Charter was adopted by Ordinance No. 76 -2792 on January 2, 1976. Iowa City is one of
only five (5) municipalities in Iowa with a Home Rule Charter.
Where can a copy of Iowa City's Charter be found?
The Charter is the first section of the City Code, which can be found at the Iowa City Public
Library and the City Clerk's office. Both the Charter and the Code are available online. Go to the
City's web site at www.icgov.org and click on the "City Code" link on the top toolbar.
What must a Charter contain?
There are five (5) minimum requirements for a Charter listed in Iowa Code section 372.10, and
they are: 1) a City Council with an odd number of members, but not less than five (5); 2) a
Mayor, who may be one of those Council members; 3) terms of office for the Mayor and
Council members of either two (2) years or staggered four (4) years; 4) the powers and duties of
the Mayor and the Council consistent with the provisions of the City Code of Iowa (Chapters
362, 364, 368, 372, 376, 380, 384, 388 and 392 of the Iowa Code); and 5) a Council
representation plan pursuant to section 372.13(11).
* All references to the Code of Iowa are to the 2007 Iowa Code
What is a "Charter Review Commission "?
The Charter Review Commission is a group of citizens appointed by the City Council at least
once every ten (10) years to review the Charter and recommend amendments to Council.
Council must either pass an ordinance adopting the recommended amendments or submit the
recommended amendments to the voters. The third, and most recent, Commission was
established by Council resolution on March 16, 2004, and began their work in May, 2004. The
Commission submitted its recommendations to amend the charter on January 19, 2005, and
Council adopted all the recommendations by ordinance on March 1, 2005. Minutes and reports
of the four (4) Charter Commissions, including the original Charter Commission, are available in
the City Clerk's office.
What is meant by "Home Rule "?
"Home Rule" is the broad, although not unlimited, constitutional grant of power to every city in
Iowa authorizing self - governance. Municipal Home Rule became effective in 1968 by virtue of
an amendment to the Iowa Constitution, voted on by the people. Later, the legislature adopted
Iowa Code Section 364.1 as part of the Home Rule Act, to complement the Constitution. That
section states, in part: "A city may, except as expressly limited by the Constitution, and if not
inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, exercise any power and perform any
function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the
city or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort,
and convenience of its residents." The Iowa Supreme Court has issued many opinions on the
powers and limits of Home Rule. Determining whether a particular local ordinance or resolution
is authorized by Home Rule in any particular instance requires a legal analysis.
IOWA CITY'S FORM OF GOVERNMENT
How is the City government organized?
The City's Home Rule Charter provides for a City Council of seven (7) members with a Council
representation plan whereby, as explained more fully below, four (4) members are at -large
representatives and three (3) are district representatives. The Council appoints a City Manager,
City Attorney and City Clerk. The City Manager serves as the Chief Administrative Officer of
the City.
What is the make up of the City Council?
The City has seven (7) Council members, who serve staggered, four -year terms. Four (4)
Council members are "at- large" and are nominated by all voters and elected by all voters.
Although the three (3) "district" Council members (Districts A, B, and C) are nominated solely by
voters within their districts and any primary is held only within the district, they are elected by
voters city -wide. Council elections are held in odd - numbered calendar years.
How is the Mayor selected and what are the Mayor's duties?
The voters do not elect the Mayor. Council members select the Mayor from among themselves
at their first meeting of the calendar year after each city council election. The Mayor is a voting
member of the council and has no veto power. The Mayor is the official representative of the
City, presiding officer of the Council and its policy spokesperson.
How does one become a candidate for Council?
A person files a petition signed by eligible electors with the City Clerk not more than sixty -five
(65) and not less than forty (40) days before the election. An "eligible elector" is "a person
eligible to register to vote in Iowa City ". The number of signatures required for a district seat, or
an at -large seat, is at least two percent (2 %) of those who voted to fill the same office at the, last
regular city election but not less than ten (10) persons. On June 1 of each election year, the City
Clerk's office ((319) 356 -5043) makes available a packet of information such as the calendar
date deadlines, the number of signatures needed and nomination forms. Section 3.02 of the
Charter describes when a primary election is required.
What is the relationship between the City Council and the City Manager?
The City Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer of the City. Section 4.04 of the Charter
contains a list of City Manager duties. All City employees, except for the City Clerk and the City
Attorney and their staffs, answer to the City Manager, who in turn answers to the City Council.
The City Council passes legislation and establishes policies for the City. It is the duty of the City
Manager to ensure that the City's ordinances are enforced and the policies are implemented.
Does the Charter address the hiring of City employees ?
Section 2.08 of the Charter requires the City Council to appoint the City Manager, the City
Attorney, and the City Clerk, all of whom report to, are accountable to and are supervised by the
City Council. The Council also approves the City Manager's appointments of the Police Chief
and the Fire Chief. All other decisions concerning hiring, firing, discipline, and supervision of
employees are made by the City Manager or those employees to whom he delegates
responsibility, subject to Iowa law, including Chapter 400 of the Iowa Code regarding civil
service employees.
What does the Charter say about Boards and Commissions?
The only board or commission that is established by the Charter is the Police Citizen Review
Board. With this exception, subject to state law (for example, section 414.6 of the Code of Iowa
requires that the City have a zoning commission with certain duties), the Charter authorizes
Council to establish citizen boards and commissions and to specify, among other matters, the
term of the members and their duties. Information on the wide variety of boards and
commissions can be found on the City web site at www.icqov.o[g/boards.htm. Current
vacancies are posted in City Hall, and on the City's web site and are advertised in the Press -
Citizen. Application forms are available on the City's web site and at the City Clerk's Office.
What does the Charter say about campaign contribution limitations?
The Charter requires that the Council pass an ordinance that limits the amount of campaign
contributions made to a candidate for election to Council. The limit, which is currently $100.00
per person per election, can be found in section 1 -9 -2 of the City Code.
THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS
What is a Charter Amendment?
Amendments must relate to the City's "form of government." "[B]asic structural proposals truly
involving the form, not the substance, of government are subject to voter approval through the
charter amendment process." Berent et. al. v. City of Iowa City 738 N.W.2d 193,212 (2007).
The Iowa Supreme Court addresses this issue in detail in the Berent case.
How can the Home Rule Charter be amended?
Under section 372.11 of the Code of Iowa, there are three (3) methods to amend a charter.
First, the City Council by resolution may submit a proposed amendment to the voters. Second,
the City Council by ordinance may amend the Charter, but if within thirty (30) days of publication
a valid petition objecting to the ordinance is filed, Council must submit the ordinance to the
voters. Third, a citizen may file a petition to place a proposed amendment on the ballot.
What is the process by which a citizen may petition to change the Charter?
State law, specifically sections 372.11, 362.4, and 44.8 of the Code of Iowa, governs the citizen
petition process. According to Iowa Code section 372.11(3), if a petition to amend the Charter
is valid as provided in section 362.4 the Council must submit the proposed amendment to the
voters at a special city election.
How does the amendment process begin?
A petition to amend the Charter must be signed by "eligible electors" equal in number to ten
percent (10 %) of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular city election, but not less
than ten (10) persons. Regular City elections are held in November of each odd - numbered year.
The City Clerk's office will provide any interested person with the number of signatures needed
to meet the ten percent (10 %) requirement. There is no special form required, but it should
contain lines for people to sign, to list their places of residence, and to date their signatures.
Also, each sheet of signatures must contain or leave attached the language of the proposed
amendment. After the requisite number of signatures is obtained, the petition is provided to the
City Clerk.
What is the role of the City Clerk?
After the petition is delivered to the City Clerk, the Clerk will "accept the petition for filing if it is
"valid on its face." If the petition lacks the required number of signatures it will be returned to the
petitioner. To decide whether the petition is valid on its face, the City Clerk will conduct a
cursory review to determine if there are a sufficient number of dated signatures with Iowa City
residences. If the petition does not appear to be valid on its face, the Clerk will not accept it,
and no further action is taken by the City. If the petition appears valid on its face the City Clerk
will accept it for filing.
After the Clerk's acceptance of the petition, there is a five (5) day period during which a written
objection to the petition may be filed with the Clerk. If no objection is filed, the Council forwards
the proposed Charter amendment to the Commissioner of Elections (Johnson County Auditor)
for submission to the voters. Objections may relate only to whether the petition contains the
requisite number of signatures of eligible electors, including their place of residence and the
date on which they signed.
What happens if an objection is filed?
If an objection to the petition is filed, the process under section 44.8 of the Code of Iowa must
be followed. A three - person committee comprised of the Mayor, the City Clerk, and a Council
member chosen by ballot (hereinafter "Objections Committee ") must consider the objection. If
the Objections Committee does not uphold the objection, the Council forwards the petition to the
Commissioner of Elections. If the Objections Committee upholds an objection that affects the
validity of the petition (i.e. reduces the number of signatures below that which is required), the
petition is not forwarded to the Commissioner of Elections because the decision of the
Objections Committee regarding the validity of the petition is "final" under section 44.8. As
noted above the Committee may consider only whether the petition contains the requisite
number of accurate signatures. The Committee may not consider the substance of the
proposed amendments.
How can a decision of the Objections Committee be challenged?
The decision of the Objections Committee can be challenged by filing a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the district court. "Certiorari" is a particular remedy available under the Iowa Rules
of Civil Procedure when an "inferior tribunal," in this case the Objections Committee, "exceeded
its jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally." A person wanting to challenge the decision of the
Objections Committee should seek independent legal advice.
When will the election on the Charter amendment occur?
If the petition is valid, a special City election must be held on the proposed amendment. The
City Council sets the date of a special election with approval of the Commissioner of Elections.
A special City election can be held at the time of a regular City election or a general election. A
charter amendment becomes effective if approved by a majority of those voting.
s
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS
What are initiatives and referendums?
An "initiative" under the City Charter is the right of a "qualified elector" to propose a "measure"
to council. A "qualified elector" is a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote in Iowa.City.
A "referendum" is the right of the voters to require a reconsideration of an existing measure. In
the Charter, "measure" means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion of a permanent
legislative nature as opposed to an administrative matter. An example of a measure of a
legislative nature is an ordinance defining weeds of a certain height to be a nuisance. An
example of an administrative matter is the enforcement of the weed control ordinance. Unlike
petitions to amend the charter, which are controlled exclusively by State law, the
initiative /referendum process is set forth in detail and governed by Article VII of the Charter.
What are the subject matter limits on initiatives and referendums?
Section 7.01B(1) of the Charter limits the right to initiative and referendum by excluding the
following measures:
(a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature.
(b) The City budget.
(c) The appropriation of money.
(d) The levy of taxes or special assessments.
(e) The issuance of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds.
(f) The letting of contracts.
(g) Salaries of City employees.
(h) Any measure required to be enacted by State or federal law.
(i) Amendments to the Charter.
Q) Amendments affecting the City Zoning Ordinance or the land use maps of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the district plan maps.
(k) Public improvements subsequent to City Council action to authorize acquisition of
property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public improvement,
whichever occurs earlier. "Public improvement" shall mean any building or construction
work.
What should I do if I'm not sure whether my proposal can be an initiative or referendum?
While some matters are clearly not within the scope of initiative and referendum, other
proposals or ideas will require a more detailed legal analysis. The City Attorney will provide an
opinion on whether a proposed measure can be the subject of an initiative or referendum after
the initial affidavit setting forth the proposal (see later sections) is filed. If changes can be made
to cure any defects identified by the City Attorney and the petitioner chooses to make them, a
revised affidavit can be filed. The City Attorney will respond to general questions about the
scope of initiative and referendum prior to filing of the affidavit. However, the City Attorney
represents the City and cannot ethically advise individual citizens, particularly given the typically
diverse range of opinions on issues presented for initiative and referendum. Therefore, the City
Attorney will not participate in the drafting of an initiative or referendum, but rather, will give an
opinion once the affidavit is filed with the City Clerk. Any citizen who has questions about the
validity of a proposal is encouraged to seek independent legal advice.
How is the initiative or referendum process started?
The procedure to undertake an initiative or a referendum is the same: You must file an affidavit
and a petition with the City Clerk. Attached to this Guide is a timeline showing the various
deadlines applicable to the initiative and referendum process. Potential petitioners are
encouraged to contact the City Clerk early in the process to determine the specific deadlines
applicable to the petition.
What is the "affidavit" and who must sign it?
The affidavit is a sworn statement signed by one or more qualified electors (called "petitioners"
in the Charter) that: a) lists the name(s) and address(es) of the petitioner(s); b) specifies the
address to which all relevant notices are to be sent; c) states that the petitioner(s) will supervise
the circulation of the petition; d) states that the petitioner(s) will be responsible for filing the
petition in proper format; and e) sets out in full the exact language of the proposed initiative
measure or citing the measure sought to be reconsidered. A blank affidavit form is available in
the City Clerk's office.
Where does the affidavit go?
The petitioner(s) must take the affidavit to the City Clerk. If the affidavit appears to have the
signature(s) of one or more qualified electors (registered voters), the City Clerk will accept it for
filing.
What is the "petition" and how many signatures are necessary?
When the affidavit is accepted for filing by the City Clerk, the Clerk will issue petition forms to
the petitioner(s) that same day. The petition must be signed by qualified electors (registered
voters) equal in number to twenty -five percent (25 %) of persons who voted in the "last regular
City election," but no fewer than two thousand five hundred (2,500) qualified electors. Regular
City elections are held in November of each odd - numbered year. The City Clerk will provide any
interested person with the number of signatures necessary. One difference between citizen
petitions to amend the Charter and citizen initiative and referendum petitions is that charter
amendment petitions need only be signed by Iowa City residents ( "eligible" voters) while
initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by Iowa City residents who have registered to
vote in Iowa City ( "qualified" voters).
Each person signing the petition must provide a signature, printed name, address and the date
of signing. A birth date is not required but is recommended because it may help the City Clerk
determine if the signer is a registered voter. For example, if the address given for Sally Smith
does not match the address on the voter roles she will be counted as a valid signature only if
the birth date provided matches the voter rolls.
What are the deadlines for gathering signatures and filing the petition?
Initiative signatures must be secured and the petition filed with the City Clerk within six (6)
months after the affidavit is filed.
Referendum petitions may be filed with the City Clerk either.within sixty (60) days after final
adoption by the Council of the measure sought to be reconsidered or subsequently at any time
more than two (2) years after such final adoption. If the affidavit commencing the referendum is
filed within sixty (60) days of final adoption, the petition with signatures must be filed within the
same sixty (60) days. If the referendum petition is commenced two (2) years or more after
adoption of the measure, the petition signatures are due within sixty (60) days of filing the
affidavit.
Potential petitioners are encouraged to contact the City Clerk early in the process to determine
the specific deadlines applicable to the petition.
What happens after the petition is filed with the City Clerk?
Within twenty (20) days after a petition is filed containing the minimum signatures, the City Clerk
must certify whether the petition is "sufficient ". Because the petition must be signed by
registered voters the City Clerk checks the signatures on the petition against the voter rolls,
which are obtained from the Commissioner of Elections (Johnson County Auditor). A petition is
sufficient if it contains the required number of valid signatures. If the petition is sufficient, the
City Clerk presents a certificate of sufficiency to the Council.
If insufficient, Section 7.04A of the Charter details how the petition may be amended once (more
signatures may be gathered). If the petition is not amended or if the amendment does not
render it sufficient, Section 7.048 provides the process and deadlines by which one or more of
the petitioners may request Council to review the sufficiency of the petition. The Council's
decision on sufficiency is a final decision by the City. To the extent allowed by law, the district
court may review the Council's actions if a writ of certiorari is filed. Any person seeking to
challenge a decision of the City should obtain independent legal advice.
What does Council do with a petition that has been found to be sufficient?
Council must consider the measure "promptly." If Council does not approve the measure in the
initiative petition (or a measure similar in substance) within sixty (60) days of the certificate of
sufficiency or repeal the measure in the referendum petition within thirty (30) days of the
certificate of sufficiency, it must be submitted to the voters.
When is the election held for an initiative or referendum?
Under Section 7.0513 of the Charter, elections are held as follows:
(1) Initiative. The vote of the City on a proposed measure shall be held at the regular
city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the
expiration of the sixty -day period provided for consideration in Section 7.05A [the 60 -day
period for Council consideration], provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than
110 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to
the Commissioner of Elections. Again, potential petitioners should review the applicable
deadlines with the City Clerk.
(2) Referendum. The vote of the City on a referred measure shall be held at the
regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after
the expiration of the thirty -day period provided for reconsideration in Section 7.05A [the 30-
day period for Council consideration] provided that the referendum petition was filed no less
than 80 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot
questions to the Commissioner of Elections. Again, potential petitioners should review the
applicable deadlines with the City Clerk. The Council may provide for a special referendum
election on a referred measure any time more than 120 days after the filing of the
referendum petition with the City Clerk .
Any person who desires his /her proposal to be on a certain election ballot is urged to confer with
the City Clerk as early as possible to review the applicable deadlines.
How many votes are required for an initiative or a referendum question to pass?
A simple majority of the votes cast is required for an initiative or referendum to pass. An
initiative that passes is effective upon certification of the election results. If a referendum
passes, the repeal of the measure is effective upon certification of the election results.
i.i
a
11
O
"7
o
w
cz�
a
o
S5
M
O
M
4
0
v, a
ad+
0 ,
U
Late Handouts — Handed out at 4/8/14 meeting
MINUTES
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
December 13, 1972, 4 p.m.
P.EMBERS PRESENT: William Meardon
Penny Davidsen
Patricia Cain
Robert Corrigan
James Knight
Brad DeCounter
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Berger and the rest not listed
above
Meeting was called to order and a motion was made and carried to
approve the minutes of the previous meetings after a correction
was noted that Mr. Wells and Mr. Honchan were not members-nf
Types of minutes were discussed and Mr. Meardon is to go over
this with the secretary.
Mr. Meardon advised that he had received a letter from Mr.
Lloyd Berger advising that due to health reasons he must
resign from the Committee. Mr. Meardon is to supply the secretary
a copy of the letter for the file.
Harry Smith and Cindy Albright of the Institute of Public Affairs
visited with the Committee on the Model Cities Charter that the
Institute of Public Affairs has been working on. Mr. Smith gave
the committee members an outline to follow and gave a brief run-
down on each item on the outline.
During a question and answer period after Mr. Smith's report, it
was brought out that there were already amendments pending on
the Charter section of things that should be added or altered. The
League Office is keeping a running list of these and Mr. Smith
advised the Committee that he would get a copy of the list for
them.
It was noted that in some instances the State of Iowa and the
City Code of Iowa City would have a lot of input into what the
committee could or could not do.
Such questions as the Mayor's role (strong- weak), Attorney's
role (Council or Staff - Manager direction).
Ask
mr The Committee will need to define the Boards and Commissions'
roles under the new Charter, which are governed by the Council -
Staff and which (such as library) are under Boards of Directors,
how to change thn. Administrative -type Boards to advisory
boards.
Page 2
0
0
The Rules Committee chairwoman, Pat Cain, gave a brief report.
It was suggested that absenteeism be brought to the attention
of the Mayor by the Chairman of the Charter Committee on a
personal basis rather than have the Committee write to the
Council about it. It was also suggested that the Charter
Committee be divided into two groups or subcommittees to work on
two different stages of the program so it could move along
faster. Some members did not feel this would be too good of a
plan as everything must mesh. It was agreed that this be discussed
further and voted on later.
Roberts Rules are to be used for procedural type matters.
The Committee plans to have educational meetings (seminar typel.
Mr. Ringgenberg will give a presentation on the types of govern-
ments in Iowa at the first seminar meeting.
Discussion was held concerning staff attendance to the Charter
Comm tee mee ings.
The motion was made that the meeting be adjourned. Motion
was seconded. Meeting was adjourned until January 10,
C
E
MINUTES
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
December 14, 1972
MEMBErS PRESENT:
Also present were members
William Meardon
David Baldus
Penny Davidsen
Patricia Cain
Brad DeCounter
Clayton Ringgenberg
Robert Corrigan
James Knight
of the City Staff.
This meeting followed a tour of City Government by the Charter
Committee and was designed as a period for questions and answers.
Discussion involved the setting of the meeting time for the ed-
at 1:30 P.M., Sunday, December 17, 1972.
Discussion next centered around questions to the City Staff con-
cerning the tour.
The discussion also centered around the following topics:
I. What effect Charter action would have on City operations
2. The Commission form of government
3.. Boards and Commissions
4. A tout of Cedar Rapids government
5. How the City Administration copes with the public
6. The feeling of discontent with government
7. The effects of centralized vs. decentralized government
8. City public relations
9. Ability of City Government to cope with the average citizen's
problems and complaints.
Lastly, the Charter Committee expressed its desire to give everyone
a fair hearing. Mr. Meardon also expressed to the press the desire
of the Committee to work closely with the press in getting inform-
ation to the public.
A motion was made and seconded that the Committee adjourn. The
motion carried.
E
i %•
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
December 17, 1972
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
MINUT-"S
William Meardon
Penny Davidsen
Patricia Cain
Brad DeCounter
Clayton Ringgenberg
Robert Corrigan
James Knight
David Baldus
Stanley Rosenstein
This meeting was an educational meeting with a presentation by
Clayton Ringgenberg on the forms of city government.
Mr. Hingg en e
a city would go to four forms of government. They are: Commission
form, Mayor Council, Council Manager, and Council- Manager -Ward.
Now, with a home rule charter, cities can go to any of these or
any variation or creation of their own as long as they have a
mayor and a council.
Mr. Ringgenberg next explained the state and local decision making
and where the responsibility for these lies. He broke these down
into who can make what decision and what the rule of the city
charter would be.
The next meeting was scheduled for January 10, 1973, at 4:00 P.M..
Motion was made and seconded that the Committee adjourn. The
motion carried.
0
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
January 10, 1973
E
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Rinqgenberg, Davidsen, Dain, Decounter,
Baldus, Welt, Knight, Corrigan
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT: Rosenstein
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Meardon at 4:05 p.m.
Minutes to the previous meeting had no additions or corrections
and stand approved as read.
Stanley Rosenstein, Research Assistant, gave a presentation
regarding his letter of January 10, 1973, to the Charter
Committee, answering questions the Committee had asked.
Copies of this letter were distributed to the Committee.
Discussion was held concerning Section 56 of the City Code
Of Iowa. Clayton Rinqgenberg stated that the Committee had
to remember that broader power is given to the City Council
than to the Charter Committee, and Section 56 limits the
powers of the Committee.
Section 47 and 48 of the City Code of Iowa were also discussed.
Mr. Meardon stated that the Council - Manager -at -large form of
government and the Council - Manager -ward form are two different
forms of government. Mr. hfeardon also expressed his concern
about the provisions set forth in Section 48 which pertain to
a change in a form of government no more often than once in every
six years. Ile questioned whether with the adoption of Ordinance
Number 72 -2651 by the Iowa City City Council, at its meeting
of August 18, 1972, which adopted the existing Council- Manager -at-
large form of government, a new form could be submitted to the
voters of Iowa City within six years. Discussion was also held
on the process of amending the home rule charter, and on what
could be amended.
Skip Laitner, representing Action for a Better Community, addressed
the Committee. fie expressed the following concerns: (1) The
Committee should make the public aware of when it meets, and that
it should hold some public meetings to gain citizen input, (2)
The Committee should establish a deadline for reporting to the
City Council, so that the proposed charter could be placed on
the ballot in a special election in time to affect the 1973 General
Election. The Committee on the whole agreed that the charter
should be on the ballot this fall in a special election. Mr.
Meardon assured Mr. Laitner that any input from any source would
ba welcome. Mrs. Davidsen suggested that the Committee make
:cure that the public knows of meetings, hearings, etc., so the
community will be aware of the Committee's progress.
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 2
January 10, 1973
Mr. Rosenstein stated to the Committee that presenting the
charter before the election date is important in that if
the election is missed on September 6, the present form of
government would continue until 1976.
Mr. Meardon then appointed Mr. Rosenstein to present the forth-
coming deadlines and submit them to the Committee in written
form Friday, January 12, 1973..
Discussion was then held on the necessity of holding public
meetings for citizen input as soon as possible.
Mr. Baldus then made the motion that the public meetings begin
January 24, 1973, that a timetable be set up, that the Committee
negotiate with the news media to serialize articles on various
forms of city government as well as an advertisement run as an
invitation to the public. Suggested dates for the advertisement
in the newspapers were Thursday, January 18, Saturday, January 20,
and Tuesday, January 23. Also motion was made that copies of
this invitation be sent to the interested groups in the city.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Corrigan and carried unanimously.
Motion was then made by Mr.. Baldus that Mr. Rosenstein work on
an advertisement for the press. Motion was seconded by Mrs.
Davidsen and carried unanimously. Mr. Rosenstein is to have
the work done and submitted to the Committee by Friday, January
12. If the members do not call Mr. Meardon's office by Saturday,
January 13, Mr. Meardon will assume each member approves of the
advertisement. Minutes of the meeting will also be submitted
January 12 to the Committee members.
Suggestion was made that the news media be invited to the neat
Committee meeting.
Mr. Baldus proposed a survey study of the general public on
people's feelings on the present form of government and offered
to contact a survey group as to price, etc. Mr. Laitner
suggested to Mr. Baldus that he contact Steve Miller, who
engages in this type of work.
Motion was made that the meeting adjourn. The motion was
seconded and carried. Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
IOWA C1't'Y CHARTER COMMITTEE:
January 11, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Meardon
David Baldus
Penney Davidsen
Patricia Cain
Brad DeCounter
Clayton Ringgenberg
Dale Welt
James Knight
Robert Corrigan
Also present was Stanley Rosenstein, Research Assistant to the
Committee.
The meetin.l was called to order by William Meardon at 4:05 p.m.
Minutes to the previous meeting had no additions or corrections
and stand approved as read.
® Stanley Rosenstein, Research Assistant, uave o presentation re-
garding the letter he previously wrote to the Committee, answering
questions the Committee had asked. Copies of this letter were
distributed to the Committee.
Discussion was held concerning Section 56.A. Clayton Ringgenberg
stated that the Committee had to remember that broader power is
given to the City Council than to the Charter Committee, and
Section 56.4 limits the powers of the Committee.
Division four was also discussed. Mr. Meardon stated that the
Council - Manager -at -large form of government and the Council -
Manager -Ward are two different forms of government. Mr. Meardon
also expressed his concern on the six -year period of time on
one form of government. Discussion was also held on the meaning
of the word amendment.
Skit, Laitner, representing the Action for a Better Community,
addressed the Corittee. He•expressed concern that the Committee
should (1) Make the public aware of timetables, that is, on when
public hearings would be held, etc., (2) Make some sort of deadline
on when the Charter would be ready to go to the City Council.
The Committee on the whole agreed that the Charter should be in
the ballot this fall.
Mr. Meardon assured Mr. Laitner that any input from any source
would be welcome. Mrs. Davidsen suggested that the Committee make
sure that the public knows of meetings, hearings, etc., so the
community will be aware of the Committee's progress.
Mr. Rosenstein reminded the Committee that presenting the Charter
brfc;rr the election date is important in that. if the election
is missed on September 9th, the present form of government. would
continue until 1976.
Mr. Meardon then appointed Mr. Rosenstein to figure out the deadlines
and submit them to the Committee in written form Friday, January
1", 1973.
Discussion was then held on beginning public hearings. Question
was raised as to the term "public hearings" rather than using the
term foram.
Mr. Baldus then made the motion that the public hearings begin
January 24, 1973, that a timetable be set up, that the Committee
negotiate with the press and through the press and radio stations
make a formal invitation to the public to attend the hearings.
Suggested dates for the ad in the newspapers were Thursday, ,January 18.,
Saturday, January 20, and 'Tuesday, January 23. Also motion was
made that copies of this invitation be sent to the different
groups of social concern in the city. Motion was seconded and
carried.
® Motion was then made that Mr. Rosenstein work on an ad for the
press. Motion was seconded and carried. Mr. Rosenstein is to
have the strategy done and submitted to the Committee by Friday,
January 12, and if the members do not call Mr. Meardon's office
by Saturday, January 13, Mr. Meardon will assume each member
agrees with the strategy. Minutes of the meeting will also be
submitted January 12 to the Committee members.
Suggestion was made that the news media be invited to the next
Committee meeting.
Mr. Baldus proposed a survey study of the general public as to
their feelings on the present form of government and offered to
contact a survey group as to price, etc. Mr. Laitner suggested
to Mr. Baldus that he contact Steve Miller, who engages in this
type of work.
Motion was made that the meeting adjourn. The motion was seconded
and carried. Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
11
•_ - _, ,. 'rug f.: aak3/ .u.e .�o-;J+n. iCea.. doe _, t.. ,i 't., t r� -o �, , -
FE
0
MINUTES
iCIWA CI". "; CHARTER COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING - January 13, 1973
Members present: Bill Meardon
Patricia Cain
Penny Davidsen
James Knight
Robert Corrigan
Clayton Ringgenberg
Brad DeCounter
Members absent: David Baldus
Dale Welt
Also Present: Stan Rosenstein
This special meeting was called by Mr. Meardon, the
chairman, at 12:00 Saturday, January 13, 1973. The purpose of
this meeting was to discuss the advertisement for the public
meeting of January 24, 1973.
Mr. Meardon explained that he had been unable to notify
Mr. Welt about the meeting and that Mr. Baldus was busy but
that he would try to come to the meeting if possible. Meeting
was called to order at 2:15.
Mr. Meardon presented the Committee with two proposed
drafts for the advertisement done by the Press Citizen. Mr.
Meardon stated that upon review by the Committee of the three
drafts presented by Mr. Rosenstein, he submitted them to the
Press Citizen for revision. General discussion followed on the
two proposed drafts.
Meeting date -Mr. Meardon expressed concern that the Committee
was being pushed into a public meeting one week too early. He
stated that the Committee might want to consider postponing the
meeting for one week. Upon confirming that the Press Citizen
had already run a news article which stated that the public
meeting was on January 24, 1973, the Committee decided not to
change the meeting date.
Number of Public Meetings-Mr. Meardon posed the question
of how many other public meetings there should be and when they
should be. The concensus of the Committee was that there should
be more than one public meeting but that the exact number and
when they should be held should be decided after the first meeting.
Flyers to Civic Groups -The Committee next expressed the
desire to use t e newspaper advertisement as the flyer to be
sent to civic groups in Iowa City. Mr. Rosenstein was directed
to work with Mrs. Davidsen to prepare the flyer for the meetinq
of January 17, 1973.
§'x
E
Paoe 2
E
Where to advertise -Mr. Corrigan brought up that the
Committee mig TFt not want to advertise in the Daily Iowan.
He stated that due to the high cost Dt the advertising in
the Press Citizen and since he believed that the Daily Iowan
charged higher rates, that the Committee might not want to
run advertisements in both papers. It was suggested that the
Committee might want to advertise only once in the Daily Iowan
and three times in the Press Citizen. It was also stated that
t1W Committee should advertise on KXIC and WUSI.
Charter Committee Budget-There was concern mentioned in
the meeting t at t e money allocated the Charter Committee was
not enough to cover the cost of advertising. It was agreed by
the Committee to seek more money to cover the cost of advertising.
Mr. Meardon stated that he would talk to Mr. Wells, the City
Manager, about getting more money for advertising.
Advertising in the Faculty Newsletters -Mr. Corrigan and Mr.
Ringgenberg stated that they cou arrange to have a page adver-
tisement in the University of Iowa Faculty Newsletter for $15.
They agreed to arrange for such an ad.
Serialization of the forms of overnment -Mr. Meardon stated
that Mr. Rosenstein a talked to im a out adding additional
information to the Institute of Public Affairs' booklet on
Forms of Government in Iowa. This booklet was to be given to the
Press for a serialization into several newspaper articles on
forms of government which would serve the purpose of informing
the public of the options available. The additional information
Mr. Rosenstein believed was necessary was to add the options
available under a Home Rule Charter. Mr. Ringgenberg agreed
and was asked by Mr. Meardon to work with the newspapers in
doing this.
Mr. informed the Committee that he has been in contact with
the Press Citizen about the serialization and that they were very
cooperative and would run the articles. Mr. Meardon stated that
so far he has been unable to contact anyone at the Daily Iowan,
KXIC, or WUSI, and that he will continiue his efforts to do so.
Mr. Ringgenberg in responding to a question said that the
serialization could be done in two articles. He further stated
that these articles should coincide with one of the advertisements.
Motion was made and seconded and the meeting was adjourned.
c
MINl1TES
Iowa City Charter Committee
lanuary 17, 1973
Members Present: Meardon, DeCounter, Cain, Ringgenberg,
Davidsen, Baldus, Knight, Corrigan
Members Absent: Welt
staff Present: Rosenstein
Mr. Meardon called the meeting to order, asking for additions
or corrections to the minutes of January 10. Mrs. Davidsen
brought up a number of corrections and the committee then
discussed preferences as to how the minutes should be recorded.
Mrs. Cain was appointed to edit the minutes before they are
submitted to the Committee and the City Council. Mr. Rosenstein
and Mrs. Davidsen were directed to revise the minutes of the
January 10 meeting. A copy of these minutes are attached.
Review of Public Meetig
The Committee spent t e rest of the meeting discussing the
first public meeting to be held in the Council Chambers at
the Civic Center on January 24, 1973 at 8:00 P.M. This
meeting is to take the place of the regular 4 :00 meeting.
The advertisement to be run in the Iowa City Press Citizen
and the Daily Iowan was changed in that the main heading
was positioned at the top of the ad rather than after the
explanations of the different forms of government.
The Committee then discussed the days that this advertisement
would run. It was previously decided that the advertisement
would run three days in the Iowa City Press Citizen. The
Committee discussed the cost of the advertisement in the Press
Citizen and the Daily Iowan. Mr. Baldus made the motion
that the advertisement be run on Thursday, January 18, and
Tuesday, January 23, and in the Daily Iowan on Tuesday, January
23. Mr. Knight seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously
carried.
Fliers advertising the public meeting to be sent to the various
organizations were discussed. It was suggested that a flier
be sent to every organization registered at the City Library
lest any group be missed. Mr. Rosenstein quoted prices on
mailing these fliers. Motion was made by Corrigan, seconded
by Baldus, to mail fliers in envelopes with eight cents
postage to insure prompt delivery. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Rosenstein was.directed to contact the University of Iowa
Advertising Department so that posters could be put up in
different buildings on campus.
U
E
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 2
January 17, 1973
The Committee then discussed the agenda for the public meeting.
Mr. Meardon said that a usual procedure for such a meeting is
to have the written correspondence.to the Committee read first,
then the meeting opened for speakers from the floor. Finally
the Committee left this matter to the discretion of the chairman
so that if there are only a few letters, they may be read first,
but if there are many, the chairman may delay their reading until
the end of the meeting.
Mr. Baldus mentioned the procedure used in the charter hearings
in New York City whereby speakers registered with a clerk and
were heard in the order (1) individual citizens, (2) representativeE
of organizations, and (3) politicians. There was some discussion
about procedural details and whether individual citizens would
actually prefer going first. The final consensus was that
people would speak in any order as recognized by the chair.
Mr. Rosenstein was asked to determine the feasibility of using
a boom mike and the limitations of the tape recorder. This
information would be the deciding factors in whether people
could speak while standing at their seats or only at the front
microphone.
The possibility of a short presentation by Mr. Ringgenberg of the
forms of government under the City Code of Iowa was discussed.
The consensus of the Committee was that they were there to listen
and that such a presentation might make the hearing a question
and answer session.
Mr. Davidsen expressed concern that any material brought up in
the hearing and not appropriate to the Committee but which was
still valuable to other areas of city government should be
noted and reported to the proper persons or groups. After some
discussion the Committee felt that this was their responsibility.
Mr. Ringgenberg distributed to the Committee members information
outlining the advantages and disadvantages of each form of
government in Division IV of the City Code of Iowa. This
material was not discussed at the meeting.
Mr. Rosenstein distributed to the Committee members a letter
from the Mayor of Greeley, Colorado, discussing their charter
which periodically places the City Manager up to a vote of
approval. Mr. Rosenstein also announced to the Committee that
he was gathering several city charters to be placed in the
Civic Center conference room.
Meeting was adjourned at 5;30 p.R..
E
Respectfully Submitted,
Cheryl Bates
Approved by
Patricia Cain
1
MINUTES
low•a City Charter Committee
Iublic Meeting
January 24, 1973
Members Present: Meardon, Corrigan, Davidson, De Counter,
Knight, Baldus, Ringgenberg, Welt, Cain.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Mr. Meardon.
Mr. Meardon made a few opening remark:, stating that the
Charter Committee was formed by the City Council for the
purpose of ascertaining and recommending the form of
qovernment most responsive to the citizens of Iowa City.
He further stated that the Committee was seeking public
opinion on this subject.
After announcing a few ground rules of the meeting Mr.
Meardon read into the record a letter received by the
Charter Committee from Ms. Janet Shipton, 820 Woodside
Drove. This letter stated the following points.
1. A City Manager with the full powers of the present
City Manager is essential to the smooth running of a
city the size of Iowa City.
2 A strong mayor elected by the people would aid in
defining policy and strengthening the leadership and
direction of the City Council. Council experience should
be a prerequisite for running for Mayor.
3. Candidates for election at large should be required
to run for a particular seat. This would widen representation.
4. ward representation should be initiated, not to provide
minority representation because minorities are widely
distributed - except for teenage voters but, to lower the cost
of running for election, to bring the political process nearer
to the people, and to provide a more limited forum for
inexperienced candidates.
>. If a combination of at -large and ward form is proposed,
the pay for at -large councilman should be significantly
higher. Each at -large councilman should also have an area
Amik of responsibility to keep up on in detail.
El
l J
'� "yv��a [�Y'�2w i s?r p1?c 7i ' s v 1 '"7 t J • s ygad ''!
0
Iowa City Charter Committee
January 24, 1973
Page 2
Elliot Full, 1820 Rochester Court. Mr. Full stated that he
was c aTi an of the Political Action League which is an
outgrowth of the City Manager's association and is devoted
to keeping the Council Manager form of government in Iowa
City. He stated that at this meeting he was speaking only
for himself because the Political Action League becomes
active when the Council - Manager form is being threatened,
and that it is inactive at this time.
Mr. Full stated the following points:
1. That it is inconceivable that anyone would want a
strong -mayor form of government because the person elected would
only be good at politics and good to his friends.
2. An elected mayor was not good with a City Manager because
there was always the question of who was elected and who
can fire whom. He stated that the Manager must either be
a "yes man" or be fired, and then the City would not be able
to get the best person as Manager.
3. That years ago the chief reason for changing forms of
government in Iowa City was wards. In the old form with wards
everyone represented their own empire and few represented
the City. Further, Des Moines, now under wards, was having
similar problems.
4. That he did not think wards were more representative
because of the problems faced by someone who supported their
ward heeler's opponents, or with the ward representative
having a different perspective than an individual on the ward.
Under the present form these were not problems because
anyone can go to any of the councilmen and thus people can
choose one that is in philosophical agreement with them.
5. That he felt the present form should he retained
6. That the Committee should address itself to more
appropriate needs. Since there are numerous government
units in the metropolitian area the prices of government
services are high and the services are often duplicated
and poor. He further stated that the Committee in filling
its responsibility was investigating the most efficient
government unit.
h�
11
0
1 <,w,1 City Charter Committee
January 24, 1973
Joe Howe, 1635 Ridge Road
points:
E
Page 3
Mr, Howo stated the following
1. That under the previous.form of government, Iowa City
had a boss who while not living in Iowa City, wis able to
run the City, With the adoption of council- manager government,
Iowa City has had honest government with capable Councilmen
and managers.
2. That city business is too complex and needs an expert to
run it with an elected council setting policy.
3. That his only quarrel with the present fcrm was that five
Council members were too few because at times there would only
be three councilmen at a meeting and two of them could make
decisions.
4. That seven council members would be a good number.
5. That at -large elections are better than ward elections
because all councilmen would be equally responsible for
all decisions and interested in the city and not in little
neighborhoods. The present form has boon responsive to
neighborhoods and every citizen has full access to the council
and receives as good service as with wards.
Linda Dole, 242 Ferson. Mrs. Dole stated that she is speaking
Tor
ague of Women Voters and is conveying opinions
solicited from the League's membership through a series of
meetings. Mrs. Dole expressed the following points:
1.* The Johnson County League of Women Voters supports the
form of city government in which the policymaking body is a
council of elected representatives and the administration of
government is implemented by a professional city manager.
2. This division works well only if the voters elect a council
that are policy leaders and that they realize that they are the
ult`mate policymaking body for city government.
3. That if a council had both policymaking and administrative
duties the council must be full -time. If Iowa City dispensed
with its city manager, the representative nature of the council
could be distorted because the only people who could be council
members were those who could give up their regular activities.
With a council that only dealed with policy, people of diversified
backgrounds could serve on the council.
-1. That the charter should contain provisions that would en-
,v,urage citizen participation in the formulation of policy.
5. The League's membership was split on the question of
FL
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 4
January 24, 1973
wheth r the mayor should be elected by the voters or selected
by the council.
6. The League does not support the Commis:iion form of government,
or a council elected exclusively from wards.
7. The League was equally divided as to whether the council should
be elected completely at -large or by a combination of wards and
at.- large. A concensus did exist that if there was a combination
of at -large and ward election, a majority of the council should be
elected at -large in order to insure a breadth of perspective on
policy matters.
H. The quality of government ultimately depends on the caliber
of the people who make policy and who administer it and efficient
:administration is most readily achieved by a professional city
manager. Unresponsive government is not caused by governmental
structure, but by citizens who do not care enough to participate
in t h e deliberations or even to vote.
Mr. Baldus asked Mrs. Dole to elaborate on the reasons pro and
con for wards. Mrs. Dole stated that many people felt that if
all of the council was elected only by wards there would be
log rolling. Also, people were concerned about the overall city.
Mrs. Dole stated that the people who supported wards felt that
wards would bring the representative closer to his constituency
and that the cost of running for election could be less. She
stated that members of the League were also concerned about
whether any given segment of the city could control the election.
She further stated that there were many people who felt that
the best compromise was to provide for some ward representation
while providing for an overall body elected at- large. There
was also the suggestion that councilmen be nominated by wards
but elected at -large to insure representation from the entire
city and not just pockets of it.
Paul Dremenber, er, 1156 E. Jefferson. Mr. Dremenberger stated
tTiat —since t ere was the notion that any system is liable to
abuse, it would be a good thing to have a recall provision so
the citizens would have some recourse if they were not being
represented.
E:d a�r Czarnecki, (no address given). Mr. Czarnecki stated that
to wa) s y memo of the City Council but that he did not speak
for the City Council. He stated that at the City Council meeting
of January 23, 1973, the Mayor left it up to the individual
councilman as to whether to attend this public meeting. Mr.
Czarnecki stated that publically he has indicated that he will
endorse and put on the ballot whatever recommendation the Charter
Committee makes, unless there are some legal problems with the
Charter.
Mr. Czarnecki brought the following points to the attention of
u
M-4t"�r't,
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 5
January 24, 1973
the Committee:
1. The Committee should carefully review the present Council -
Manager -at -large form of government as it works in Iowa City.
This form swept the country in the 1930's and 40's and is now
the predominant form of government in cities the size of Iowa
City. There were several arguments given at that time for this
form, one being to professionalize the operation of city govern-
ment. The argument went that the average citizen was not an
expert in the technical areas and therefore a professional manager
was needed to prepare and research so that the council could
act on policy issues. The council was selected to represent the
best qualified people in the community.
2. There was also the argument of whether to have wards centered
around the partisan narrow interests of the alderman vs. the
broad, at- large, overall scope of the councilmen elected at- large.
Mr. Czarnecki further stated that one of the primary reasons for
the enactment of council- manager -at -large form of government was
a division between policy and administration. With the increased
scope of city government, this division is not clear -cut and the
policy does not stem from the council but rather it flows from
the staff via the city manager to the city council, with the
council serving as only a vetoer or an endorser of recommended
policy.
3. The Committee should consider the increased work load of the
council. Since the council acts as a committee of the whole and
each councilman deals with each subject, he can't become an
expert on everything. Combined with this time restraint is the
fact that the input and information to the council flows from
the city staff through the city manager. Mr. Czarnecki stated
that this was not a criticism but rather an observation of how
the system works. Mr. Czarnecki further stated that council
contact with the city's boards and commissions is limited and
for a councilman to do any detailed study of their actions would
take considerable time..
4. The Committee should look at how the system works now in
addition to the traditional arguments for the council-manager-
at -large form.
5. With the eligibility and participation of students in city
government, the way Iowa City government operates is changed.
The council- manager form stresses unanimity among the council
which works fine where there are no sharp divisions but with
studants this does not work in Iowa City. Also, there are a
lot of groups in Iowa City which represent minority groups
and city operation does not give enough opportunity for them
to have input, t-o get information, and to be heard.
b. With the adoption of home rule, cities will have more
authority and city governments' areas of interest will increase.
Iowa City Charter Committee Page G
January 24, 1973
7. The Committee should look into:
a. The function of the mayor and whether he should
be elected by the voters or by the council. Mx.
Czarnecki said that there were strong and valid
arguments for the direct election of the mayor,
and by doing so it would clarify policymaking,
and remove citizen confusion about who runs the
show, focusing on one individual.
b. The arguments for and against combining the duties
of the manager with those of the mayor. lie stated
that the decision about whether or not to retain
a manager should depend on what the Charter Committee
sees the function of the mayor's office to be. Mr.
Czarnecki stated that there were several alternatives
and that there must be someone to run the city
administration.
c. The representation, size, and composition of the council.
Mr. Czarnecki said that the Committee should review
the background of those who have been council
members in the,last five to ten years and if Towa
City is similar to the national trend, the council -
men's backgrounds will be professional and managerial.
He further stated that there was also a question of
the cost of running for office, limiting the type
of people on the council, Mr. Czarnecki further
stated that the size of the council depends on the
function of the council. Too often people focus
on the council- manager -ward form which prescribes
for seven council members but this may not be enough.
Mr. Czarnecki recommended that the council use the
committee system in conjunction with boards and
commissions.
8. Things have changed in Iowa City since 1952 when the council -
manager -at -large form of government was adopted, replacing an
inefficient and corrupt government. There has been a change in
the concept of the role of city government and because a structure
was once great, doesn't mean so now.
9. The Charter Committee should review how best to deliver ser-
vices to the increased needs and demands of the public today.
Mr. Baldus asked Mr. Czarnecki if initiation of policy would
be a full -time responsibility. Mr. Czarnecki responded that
if the council were full -time, it might be equated with the
function of the city manager. He stated that he is not for
the commission form of government. The key is where does policy
originate and the present system says policy and administration
are separate, but that is impossible and thus the government
doesn't perform one of the functions it set out to do.
Mr. Baldus asked what should be the function of the mayor, Mr.
Czarnecki responded that the mayor should be an individual who
developes a platform that sets priorities and goals for the city.
This would cause a more issue- oriented campaign.
rte',`
lowa City Charter Committee page 7
January 24, 1973
Mr. 6aldus asked what power should a mayor have. Mr. Czarnecki
responded that the mayor should have more of an executive role
with or without a city manager. Under the present form the
executive branch is lost. with a stronger mayor, the mayor
would propose policy and whether it gets passed would depend
on council action. He stated that the Charter Committee should
look to see how issues come before the council and who initiates
action and the Committee would see that it is not the council.
'rho council doesn't presently have a procedure initiate.
Mr. Corrigan stated that in sum.-narizing, Mr. Czarnecki's state-
ments of the present form of government did not live up to Mr.
Czarnecki's expectations for two reasons: (a) The Council
was not responsive enough to the widest needs of the community.
(b) The Council was not setting policy but rather the staff
was. Mr. Corrigan asked if these reasons were the result of
the structure of government, or of the people who hold these
positions. Mr. Czarnecki responded by saying that it was a
matter of structure because.the structure prevents the council
from getting enough information so the council must rely on
others and approve or reject.
Mr..Daldus asked what recommendation would Mr. Czarnecki have
to solve the problem of groups not getting enough input. Mr.
Czarnecki replied that a method of doing this would be to have
a larger council elected by wards. it is important to consider
the number of wards and their composition. If Iowa City was
divided into four wards, each ward would contain some students,
some working -class and some higher- income people. Mr. Czarnecki
said that he would favor a more decentralized breakdown or
something uniform by geographical area with the downtown area
being one interest, the immediate downtown area another, and
the fringe area a third. If there would be more councilmen,
these rings should be divided up with more representatives
coming from each cross section.
Mr. Corrigan asked Mr. Czarnecki if he was saying that he, as
a councilman elected at -large was not listening to groups of a
different social- economic background. Mr. Czarnecki replied
that now it was a personalized activity with people going to
the councilmen they are most fimiliar with and that there is a
connection between familiarity and responseiveness. Mr. Czar-
necki further stated that he did listen to anyone who called
him.
Mr. Corrigan asked Mr. Czarnecki if the people with whom he
was most familiar lived in the same area. Mr. Czarnecki responded
that they were in one or two of the circles he described.
Mrs. Cain asked Mr. Czarnecki whether a mayor should be full or
part -time. Mr. Czarnecki responded that other cities, such as
New York City, have performed well without a full -time professional
administrator. He further stated that he preferred having a
full -time mayor but that it was not essential. presently, with
the policy - administration shift citizens don't control policy.
,
Iowa City Charter Committee Page H
January 24, 1973
to With a mayor being the administrative head of: the city, this
would do a lot for the management of -- city because the ad-
miniztiation must take into account the type of person in office.
John Deine, Route 3. Mr. Dane stated.that he is not a resident
n I-7 owa City, that he is a member of the Board of Education,
and that he is speaking for himself. Mr. Dane expressed the
following points:
1. A five - member council does have a big work load and it
would be better to have a larger city council. This might not
result in a decreased work load but that it would give the
citizens more input into the council.
2. That Iowa City should go to the council- manager -ward form
of government as prescribed in the City Code. Mr. Dane felt
this form was best for the following reasons:
(a) The mayor is directly elected by the people and
remains part -time. Mr. Dane did not believe that
an elected mayor would conflict with the city manager.
(b) That four elected councilmen from wards bring
government closer to the people. Mr. Dane disagreed
that there should be consideration given to how
to split up Iowa City into wards because any way
this would be done, it would be wrong. Mr. Dane
stated that the population center should be found
and cut.
(c) That two councilmen and the mayor are still elected
at- large.
3. That he hoped that no matter from which area a councilman
was elected, each councilman would work for Iowa City and not
particularly for their ward.
Dorothy Douglass, (no address given). Ms. Douglass stated that
she is the spo eswoman for Action for a Better Community.
Ms. Douglass stated that there is considerable uncertainty as to
what is legally allowed in the charter and that it is apparent
that regardless of the intent of the legislature, there will be
definitive interpretations sought from the Supreme Court. She
stated that there is danger that the Committee could, in spending
time discussing what could be in the charter, delay its report
beyond a time that could affect the next ge.ieral election. This
would prohibit a new form of government from taking effect until
1976. Ms. Douglass stated that Iowa City should provide leader-
ship for the state and the political climate of home rule demands
expedient recommendations for more responsive government.
Ms. Douglass stated that the Committee shouldn't risk negation of
the charter or delay by the courts by proposing an illegal charter.
She stated that it is clearly in the scope of the.charter to
prescribe a form of government. Ms. Douglass suggested the follow-
ing alternative ways of submitting a charter which would assure
that the city had a legal charter and that the voters were given
a.._. sv 'n.sr..v�s.n�_ «w.vvvv+ar� +..n. vmcrvre. eaV.cA'w`°"• � �slti.}NF
Iowa city Charter Committee Page 9
January 24, 1973
more decision- making in the charter.
1. ine Charter Committee should submit the proposed form
separately from the controversial issues and they should be
voted on separately.
2. If there is not enough time to consider more than the form
of government before the election, Section 57 of the City Code
of Iowa provides the second alternative. The Charter Committee
could propose only a limited charter in time to affect the
election and if adopted, the Committee could then tackle the
rest of the issues, sending a second proposal to the council
to be submitted to a vote in a special election.
Ms. Douglass stated that Action for a Better community did not
support any form of government at this time.
Karen Carpenter, (no address given). Ms. Carpenter stated that
she r_ep_r_e_s_e_n_t_e72r the New American Movement. She stated the follow-
ing points:
1. Each form of government has some advantages and disadvantages.
2. No form can solve the problems of today because that is the
.4ob of the people and for the people to do this, they need access
to government.
1. Since the 1950's th.arc has been an emphasis on efficiency in
government maric�d by the cir.y manager. The professional has
stepped into city yavernment along with administration from the
top. Ms. Carpenter continued by saying that in the name of
efficiency the people's voices have been replaced by the expert's
opinion.
4. That whatever form arrived at should be accessible and
responsible.
5. That there should be twelve council people elected by wards
and a mayor elected at- large. Ms: Carpenter stated the following
three reasons why the New American Movement was for this form
of government: (a) A city -wide election is costly and this means
that people who control money can control elections. (b) People
feel better represented if their council person is from their
neighborhood, and there will be greater responsiveness. (c) The
city manager makes policy by virtue of access to information.
(d) An elected mayor as the chief administrative officer would
be responsible to the voters.
Joe Zajicek, Route 5. Mr. Zajicek stated the following points:
I. Everything is not rosey with the present form.
2. The Committee should look into the activities of the Inter -
naLional City Management Association and into what motivates them
and what are their objectives. Mr. Zajicek cited the book,
r
Iowa city Charter Committee Page 10
January 24,. 1973
Terrible 1313 Revisited.
3. That it's sad to think that Iowa City can't get people
from the community to run the city.
4. Every time the city gets a new city manager, people say
to him that the last one wasn't as bad as the new one. Mr.
Zajicek said that these people were not at this public meeting.
5. When you have a city manager, you have someone who insulates
the elected body from the wrath of the public.
6. That when someone takes something to the city manager, they
get action according to who they are and that Mr. Zajicek has
been run around by all of them except for the present manager,
whom he has not dealt with yet.
7. Also that the tail wags the dog and why not because the
council is not paid, and the manager is paid very well.
8. Since the city manager has to be an expert in every field
and since it doesn't work that way the manager must employ
specialists. Therefore, why not employ specialists under
elected officials who can be fired by the public.
9. The Commission form of government gives the above responsi-
bility to commissioners who don't have to be re- elected if they
get too far out of line.
10. That the Charter Committee should look to see how much the
city pays to hire experts who are insulated from the public and
who tell the public what they need.
11. The Commission form of government is the only alternative.
This form has been corrupted at times but that only happens when
the public is indifferent. If the public remains concerned and
watches what.is going on, this problem would not happen. If
Chicago can get by without an all- around expert, so can Iowa City.
The city manager is not the only expert..
JohncLau McLaughlin, 1715 Rochester Court. Mr. McLaughlin stated the
0 of I1 wing points:
1. That the Committee should look carefully into the notion of
power and where it lies in Iowa City, because that is the one
thing that government is responsive to.
2. An extension of representation is an extension of power to
the people.
3. That it is not necessarily the case that any given structure
will assure that the people will have power because there is an
insulation of government. Mr. McLaughlin stated that he was
not speaking against the present form of government.
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 11
January 24, 1973
4. The Committee should look into ways to more equitably
distribute power, regardless o£ form of government.
Claudine Harris, 219 Ronalds. Ms. Harris asked a question
concerning ward representation and why someone who lived one. -
half mile from you would be more responsive than .someone three
miles away. She asked what advantage wards would have in a city
as small as Iowa City.
Jim Ryan, 440 Wales. Mr. Ryan stated the following points:
1. That over fifty percent of the housing units in Iowa City
are occupied by tenants.
2. There is a need for a method for council proposals to be
acted on and not referred to other places, i.e., the proposed
Landlord- Tenant Ordinance.
3. There is a need for someone on the council for tenants to
go talk to. Presently, neither the council members nor the
manager represent tenants.
4. That there should be wards and a'n elected mayor so that
people will have someone to go talk to and have a feeling that
they will be listened to. With this form, politics, if nothing
else, will assure that people are represented.
S. Tenants are not just part -time residents and they do pay
taxes. Tenants are one large constituency that is not represented
under the present form of government.
At this time Mr. Meardon asked if there was anyone else who wished
to address the Committee. Mr. Elliot Full desired to ask Mr.
Czarnecki a question and stated that people elect the council so
they are not disinfranchised. Mr. Full continued that since
Mr. Czarnecki felt that a manager was not important and he disliked
professional input, then what would happen if a winning football
coach was elected mayor, would the city not get completely
amateur government?
Mr. Meardon stated that this was not a fair question to Mr.
Czarnecki and that he did not have to respond.
Mr. Meardon adjourned the meeting at 9 :40 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stanley Rosenstein
Administrative Assistant
MINUTES
lowa City Chal'ter Collulilttee
t.,nu.,ry 31, 1973
E
Preacntation by Mr. Skip Laitner to he attached to the+ minutr-1
of tho January 24, 197.3, Public Meeting.
Laitner, 422 [frown Street. Mr. Laitner stated that he wished
to address the Committee because he had not been able to attend
the public meeting of January 24, 1973. Mr. Laitner stated
the following points:
1. That the Charter Committee should be innovative, setting
the kind of thinking in which there is some opening up cf
government, tie stated that the Committee should not adopt
a form of government just because eighty -five percent of the
population was comfortable with that form, but instead the
Committee should dislodge that comfort and force people to
participate in government.
2. That the form of government should be the "mayor-commissic.-
ward" form of government. He stated that, while the groupings
and specific numbers varied, this form would be made up as
follows:
A. Twelve councilmen elected from four wards.
B. Each councilman should serve on one of the four
committees which were made up of: Finance Committee,.
Public Safety Committee, Public Works Committee,
and the Community Development Committee. Each
committee would thus have three members.
C. The mayor would make the committee assignments.
D. The Committees would be responsible for initiating
policy to be brought in front of the entire council.
E. Every two years the committee positions would be
rotated and councilmen would not run for a specific
committee position. Also, committee appointments
would not be made until after the election.
F. The mayor should be elected at -large and would be a
member of the council.
3. That the problem of a lack of council initiative is inherent
in the type of government Iowa City has. That the quality of
work that the council must act on under this form necessitates
that the council must rely on the staff and that this reliance
has gotten to the point where staff, in its functioning, is work-
ing toward its own goals and Lhey begin to recommend procvduron
that the council necessarily adopts.
4. That there should be a larger council and thus; a stiongci
minority report with more diverse opinions than the threr -t.-
tt:u vut,! that now exists.
That. a strict commission f rlr would not be adt";uatr 11 -ri;ar
the voters would be electing professionals and professional!;.
low.i City Charter Committee
January 31, 1973
have a self - interest peculiar to
professionals do not have enough
public and their consideration is
approach to the problem as to how
:n technical terms.
E
'age 2
thoir own backgrounds. Purthor,
.,p;_-;-winded sensitivity to tn,�
strictly from a logistical
problems can best be answered
6. Since professionals do not have an open creativity in their
presentation to council, Iowa City would be much better off
having three part -time councilmen serving as commissioners on
a specific subject area. These councilmen should have higher
salaries.
7. That Mr. Laitner tends to favor a strong mayor form of
government with no city manager, but lee can kio either way on
that.
B. With the mayor- commission -ward form, several things would
happen:
A. There would be a greater tendency for people wanting
to become more involved because they could run from
their own wards.
B. That there would not be such a heavy reliance on betnk
well known in the city, or in having a large solid
backing, to be able to run for the council.
9. With twelve council members, the work load would be more evenly
dispersed, there would be more room for innovation, and the
council members could take more time to go out in the community
and be more responsive. In addition, the council members
would still have enough time for their own businesses and their
own lives.
10. With good - sized committees, each councilman would have the
Opportunity to be up on his own area so that he could introduce
more legislation and the council would not have to rely on the
professional staff and instead could give more direction to the
staff.
11. That there was precLdent in other cities for this size of a
council.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stanley Rosenstein
Administrative Assista;;t
a]
El
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
Public Meeting
January 31, 1973
Members Present: Davidsen, Cain, Welt, Meardoi„ Baldus,
Corrigan, DeCounter.
Members Absent: Knight, Ringgenberg.
Also Present: Rosenstein
Meeting was called to order by Mr. Meardon. The minutes
of January 10 and January 17, 1973, were approved as
amended. The correction on the minutes of January 10
was Mrs. Cain instead of Mrs. Dain. The motion was
made by Mrs. Davidsen and seconded by Cain. Motion
unanimously carried.
The minutes of January 24, 1973, of the Public Meeting
were deferred until read and studied by the Committee.
Skip Laitner, 422 Brown Street, was present at the
Committee meeting and stated that lie wished to address
the Committee because he had not been able to attend
the public meeting of January 24, 1973. After Mr.
Laitner's remarks, Mr. Meardon asked if any one else
in attendance would care to address the Committee.
There were no further speakers. Mr. Meardon then direct-
ed Stanley Rosenstein to add Mr. Laitner's address
to the Committee to the minutes of the public hearing..
Mr. Meardon called for any feelings, questions, or
suggestions about the public meeting from the Committee
members. Mrs. Davidsen stated 1) that she felt that
the time has come when the Committee members should
put forth their own individual ideas, possibly putting
a model charter before the people of the city and letting
them tear it apart and 2) in reference to Mr. Rosen -
stein's letter to the Committee in regard to the creation
of new wards, that she envisions this as a real problem
requiring thought as to what would be involved in the
design of new wards vis a vis a time schedule. Mr.
Rosenstein stated that tfie creation of new wards in
time for the November election is not an impossibility,
although there are problems involved.
Mr. Corrigan agreed with Mrs. Davidsen about Committee
members putting forth their own ideas and stated that
he was prepared to make a motion to that effect. lie
rn
.;
Iknaa Wily Charter Committee
,J.unnry 11, 197.1.
stales the following notion: "Be i,•rolvvd that tilt,
low., City Charter Committee go on record at this time
as being in favor of a council - manager form of govern-
ment with an elected mayor and that this Council be
a seven- member group, four of whom, including tho mayor,
will be elected at large and three elected from the
three newly created wards." This motion was seconded
by Mr. Baldus, and Mr. Meardon called for discussion.
Discussion centered around whether three was the optimum
number of wards, whether neighborhoods per se or an
ideological class- conscientousness was involved, whether
ward elections would be considerably less expensive
than at -large elections for candidates, and whether
the relationship between class, occupation, income and
geography is relevant. The Committee directed Mr.
Rosenstein to submit a report on the breakdown of the
census tracts for Iowa City by immediate income, by
numbers of people in the family, by renter or owner
and any other available relevant variable that reflects
social class and economic interest. Mr. Laitner stated
that he thought the value of the ward system is in the
reduction of the area and cost of a council campaign.
The direct election of the mayor was discussed in relation
to the veto power of the mayor, as granted in Section
75 and 76 of the City Code of Iowa, regardless of the
form of municipal government and in relation to the
possibility of this office becoming a political step-
ping- stone. Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Welt complimented
the responsiveness of the present form of government
and agreed that the people actually elected rather
than the form are largely responsible for responsiveness
in government.
Mr. Baldus made the motion to table Mr. Corrigan's
resolution until the Committee was more informed on some
of their questions. Mrs. Cain seconded the motion and
it was passed unanimously.
Mr. Baldus raised the question of holding a special
election on the same day as the school board election.
Mr. Rosenstein stated that the school board election
is set for September 10 and if the charter election
is held past September 6, the 60 -day deadline before
the next general election would be missed.
Mr. Meardon asked the Committee if they thought another
1)ublic meeting was appropriate. The general feeling
of the Committee was that such a meeting would be very
desirable after the Committee had made some tentative
E
Iowa City Charter Committee Page -1
January 31, 1973
4`
decisions about. the charter and c d invite the public
to comment on and ask questions about these decisions.
Mr. Baldus submitted to the Committee a report prepared
by the Laboratory for Political Research, a branch of
the Political Science Department at the University
of Iowa. This report presents the cost of a survey
to rind out what the citizens of Iowa City think about
municipal government. The Committee would help put
together a questionnaire and the Laboratory would hire
interviewers and analyze the results. The entire pro-
cess would take nine, or possibly ten, weeks. The cost
01 the University's indirect costs might be waived
upon request from the Committee as a matter of the
University's contribution to the community interest.
Mr. Baldus also stated that from his own experience,
the Laboratory is quite expert and reliable, is easy
to work with and would do a very professional job for
the Committee at a modest rate. Mr. Corrigan agreed
with this opinion. Mrs. Cain questioned if the Commit-
tee's own time schedule would alter the value of such
a survey at this late date. Other Committee members
stated that it would be better to have the information
a short time before the deadline than not to have it
at all.
Mr. Corrigan made the following motion: "The Committee
believes it to be of importance to its operations to
sample the citizens of Iowa City on certain questions
relative to a City Charter. To this end we are instruc-
ting our chairman to consult with the City Council to
request authorization for funding to carry out the
survey." Mr. Baldus seconded the motion and the motion
passed on a 4 -to -3 vote with Cain, Meardon and welt
dissenting. Mr. Corrigan then moved for reconsideration
of the question at the next meeting in view of the
close vote. Mr. Baldus seconded the motion. The Com-
mittee suggested to Mr. Baldus that he bring someone
from the Laboratory to discuss the survey and give
the Committee an opportunity to ask questions as to
what its contents would be, etc. The motion was voted
on and passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned.
F&
Rough estimates --
Interviews (1,000 at $4)
Project supervisor, 1 month
Seceretarial assistance, half -time,
1 month
Supplies
Data Preparation
Coding 50 hours at $3
Keypunching 80 hrs. at $4
File creation
Jata Analysis
Preparation of research reports
Sampling
Random
Fringe -- 15%
Indirect Costs -- 55.77%
L
8 4,000
067
260
30
150
120
80
200
250
300
$ 6,057
817
3,038
_r
MINUTES.
10W3 City Charter Committee
Fo bruary 7, 1973
NEptBNRS PRESIiNT: Meardon, Baldus, Davidson, DeCounter, Cain,
Corrigan, Welt, Knight
MEMBERS ABSENT Ringgenberg
STAFF PRESENT Rosenstein
GUESTS PRESENT Mr. William Welsh, from the Laboratory for
Political Research
Mr. Meardon opened the meeting, calling on Mr. Baldus to introduce
Mr. William welsh, head of the Laboratory for Political Research.
Mr. Welsh gave a brief report on what type of work the laboratory
does, stating that the laboratory does not solicit jobs of this
nature, but would be willing to do this particular job for the
Charter Committee in the interest of the community. Mr. Welsh
also gave a brief report on some studies done in the state of
Iowa by various students and professors from the University of
Iowa. Ile stated that three kinds of analysis can be done when
you do this type of research:
I. Illustrative, by tabulations on, response!-, to subjects,
2. Relationships among different kinds of attitudes.
3. Relating characteristics of the respondents who are
interviewed to the attitudes they have on various
questions asked in the survey.
Mr. Welsh also went over the rough budget summary with the
Committee. Mr. Welsh stated that he based the interview cost
on the assumption that about seven hundred and fifty interviews
would need to be done in Iowa City on some kind of sampling
basis. The sampling can be done any way the Committee wants it,
based on what kinds of issues the Committee thinks are important
and the extent to which the Committee thinks the attributes of
individuals are relevant to explaining what their attitudes might
be toward these kinds of issues (by using census tracts). Mr.
Welsh then called for questions from the Committee.
Mr. Meardon asked the time element for the whole project. Mr.
Welsh stated that it would take six weeks from the time that the
questions for the survey were set, adding that it would probably
take at least ten days for the CORMA ttee to arrive at the questions,
making the project entail seven weeks or longer.
Mr. Meardon then asked about the two types of sampling- random and
:stratified sampling. Mr. Welsh stated that the difference between
be stratified
and stratified sampling is to take the census tapes and identify
characteristics of citizens that are relevant to explaining the
possible results of the survey. Mr. Meardon asked how many people
would need to be interviewed to get an idea of whether the survey
would be accurate. Mr. Welsh stated that seven hundred and fifty
I
City Charter Committee Page 2
February 7, 1973
:s a minimum number for a stratified sample for a population of
thirty thousand people. For a simple random sample, you could
.;o as low as interviewing four hundred and twenty -five to five
hundred people. Mr. Moardon asked what percentage of accuracy
the Committee could look for. Mr: Welsh stated that two and
one -half percent of thirty thousand people is supposed to be
„c,:a atc from reports of sampling statisticians. Mr. Meardon
then asked how long the results of a survey of this type would
Lie valid. Mr. Welsh stated that it depends on the political
environment where the public's ideas are influenced, so this is
a difficult question to answer. Mr. Welsh was thanked for his
Presentation.
Mr. Meardon then called for corrections or additions to the
minutes of January 31, 1973. Mr. Corrigan stated that the
visitors should be listed, other than the press. He also
stated that Stan Rosenstein should be listed under staff present
rather than also present. Mr. Corrigan then moved the minutes
be approved, seconded by Dale Welt, Motion was unanimously
carried.
Mr. Meardon then called for additions or corrections to the
public meeting of January 24, 1973. Mr. Daldus moved the minutes
be approved as submitted, seconded by Mr. Corrigan. Motion
unanimously carried.
The motion was made by Mr. Corrigan that the addendum to the
minutes of the public meeting be approved and added as reported
and edited to the public meeting minutes of January 24, 1973.
Mrs. Cain seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
Mr. 6aldus then asked the Committee if any action was to be taken
on the survey. Mr. Corrigan stated that, in view of the limited
amount of time left before the election deadline, he is reasonably
opposed to such a survey at this time. Mrs. Davidsen voiced concern
that,she questions whether the Committee can be told a form of
government that will be most responsive, and believes that the
Committee can, through subsequest public meetings, research, and
study on the Committee's part, determine this. Mr. Welt stated
that with the time and cost elements involved, he believes that
this would not be a feasible move for the Committee to make at
this time. Mr. Meardon then called for a vote for the reconsider-
ation tabled from the last meeting. (Mr. Corrigan, at the January
31, 1973 meeting, moved for reconsideration of the question for
requesting authorization for funding to carry out this survey
until the meeting of February 7. Motion was unanimously carried.
Mr. Baldus then moved that the Committee recommend to the City
Council that the survey be conducted. Mr. Corrigan seconded the
:'uotion. After some discussion, motion failed unanimously,
itricrf discussion was held on Mr. Rosenstein's summary to the
Committee on an article, "Role Diversity of City Managers ", from
the Administrative Science Quarterly. Mr. Rosenstein was asked
to obtan copies of the complete article for the Committee members.
?r
.a3s- da4h ,.ay'fi^ 4`rti Ft`s "Fs, r, ��'° i r "? i sx T + lT � :..__.
WAR
I, .eP i. �r3 N u �v"�,.,, �_ st7e aX a3!'
E
town City Charter Committee
February 7, 1973
C
Page 3
Mr. Rosenstein then presented to the c- immittee:
1. Maps showing distribution by precinct of votes for
councilmen in the 1971 general election.
2. A map showing distribution by precinct of vote against
the parking ramp.
3. Organizational chart of Iowa City Government.
4. Summation of an article by Gladys Kammerer regarding
direct election of the mayor in council - manager cities.
Stan then asked the Committee about the possibility of having a
print. -out of the census tract tapes to determine the social -
rconomic breakdown in Iowa City. The cost is roughly $75 to
$100. The purpose of this survey is, is the Charter Committee
is seriously considering a ward option,,the survey would be very
helpful information. Mr. Baldus moved that the Committee have
this work be done. Mrs. Davidsen seconded the motion. Motion
unanimously carried.
Mr. Rosenstein brought up the possibility of changing the Committee
meeting time and /or possibly meeting twice a week, and the possi-
bility of having an agenda to follow. lie stated the advantage of
having better press coverage as a result of agendas before meetings.
lie also stated the possibility of using a model charter for the
basis of decisions not aimed at any form of government. lie also
stated the possibility of bringing guests in (city managers, mayors,
etc.) from other cities. Discussion on these points followed.
Mr. Meardon then asked the Committee's feelings on having another
public meeting. After some discussion, Mrs. Cain made the motion
that the Charter Committee schedule .a public meeting for March 21,
1973, provided the Committee can get the Council Chambers for that
night. Mr. Corrigan seconded the motion. Motion unanimously
carried.
Discussion was then held on the possibility of the Committee having
two meetings a week. The Committee decided to meet on Wednesdays
in the Conference Room from 4:00 to 5:30 P.M. and on Thursdays at
8:00 P.M. in open -ended meetings in the Council Chambers.
The tentative agenda for the February 14 meeting is to begin discussing
the Model Charter (Inst. of Public Affairs form), Articles I and II.
Meeting was adjourned.
Approved by Pat Cain
9t..
,h'i��"1~ �+;;,; r..�t. :w�.�i�.511.; ?1��!�v3 � 3- ,.t�w•,ar > �.7F.!+�- c1 <3.e r ?i�' 2�!G? c '�� .,?�x�>
r.
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
February 14, 1973
Mi:MFtiRS PRESENT: Ringgenberg, Cain, Knight, Corrigan, itaO dsen, Wvlt,
Meardon, DeCounter
MEMBERS ABSENT Baldus
STAFF PRESENT Rosenstein
GUESTS PRESENT Janet Shipton, 820 Woodside Drive
Mr. Meardon called the meeting to order.
Mrs. Davidsen moved that the minutes of the February - meeting be approved,
seconded by Mr. Corrigan. Motion unanimously carried.
Mr. Meardon then called for any public attending the meeting to address the
committee. Ms. Janet Shipton, 820 Woodside Drive, Iowa City, Iowa, stated
the following:
a. She supports the full -time manager as essential to the smooth- running
of a city the size of Iowa City.
b. Under the weak -mayor system, too much policy is tieing generated by
staff and too little by the council and a strong mayor would be more
likely to provide policy leadership.
c. That one factor for a person considering to run for mayor might be to
decide whether they could get along with the city manager.
d. That there should be ward representation to encourage wider participa-
tion in the election process.
e. That five wards would open the primary elections to more groups with
less financial backing.
f. That at -large candidates be nominated for a Particular scat.
g. That at -large members should he paid considerably more than the ward
members if a mixed system is decided on.
h. That at -large councilmen should he given an area of concern in which
he should read the staff material in detail (for example: finance,
public safety, streets).
i. That place of residence should not he a requisite for ward representation
within a city of this size.
Ms. Shipton then called for any questions from the committee. kit'. Meardon
thanked her for her presentation. Sir. Ringgenherg asked Ms. Shipton to elaborate
on her point about candidates running for particular seats, and she stated that
seats might be numbered.
Mrs. Cain then asked what advice to give the public when asle,j o❑ what meeting
to come to in order to address the committee. Mr. Mearolon start ed that , as tar
as he was concerned, they could give a presentation at dither meeting. It wa.
also decided that the Thursday night meetings would ho taped.
Mr. Meardon then read a letter from Councilman Czarnecki t-,' the charter tbnunittec
regarding personal observations on functions of government. .'h•. `Ieardon directed
Mr. Rosenstein to make copies of the letter and distribute to the Committee.
Iowa City Charter Committee
February 14, 1973
Page 2
Turning to the Model Charter to Article 1, Section 1.01- Powers of the City-
Mr. Meardon called for any suggestions on amendments to this section. do
one commented.
Section 1.02 - -None
Section 1.03 - -Mr. Ringgenberg stated that it was not necessary to have this
section in, that this type of section is one that could start cluttering up
the charter, and is one that some people don't understand and therefore might
not vote for the charter because of this. Ile stated that Section 1.01 and
1.02 could be combined or possibly no sections, just Article 1, Mr. Corrigan
stated that he would recommend that Section 1.03 be left in the charter. Ile
also suggested some type of additions possible in the charter. Mr. Ringgenberg
stated that a possible preamble or introductory statement of some kind might
be a good idea. Mrs. Cain stated that she liked the idea of a preamble to the
charter.
Mr. Corrigan then moved that the Committee should have a preamble for the
charter. Mrs. Cain seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
Mrs. Cain asked if Section 1.03 or any similar section specifically related
to intergovernmental relations was important legally. Mr. Ringgenherg stated
that 1.02 and 1.03 are neither necessary to a charter legally. Mrs. David-
sen moved that the Committee omit Section 1.03, seconded by Mr. Knight. ?tot ion
unanimously carried.
Mr. Meardon then called for motion to combine Section 1.01 and 1.02 of the
proposed charter. Mrs. Cain moved that, for now, the Committee leave the
sections separate as they are written, seconded by Mrs. Davidsen. Motion
passed 7 to 1.
Mr. Meardon commended the new lay review article from Drake University, dealing
with the background of legislation, with a lot citations and suggested that the
Committee obtain a copy.
Mr. Rosenstein suggested that the preamble he started on. Mr. Meardon suggested
that all of the Committee members come up with one or two points that it should
include. Mrs. Davidsen stated that she thought the Committee should wait until
they had gone over this entire proeess. Committee decided to wait as suggested.
Article II- Section 2.01 -- Committee discussed wards and terms of office on
council. Committee decided to go around the table with each member expressing
his or her personal belief as to what Article 11, Section 2.01, which pertains
to the composition, eligibility, election, and terms of the City Council,
should nrovide. It was made very clear that the opinions expressed at this time
would not bind any Committee members, or the Committee, and that the view points
could be changed at any time. Mr. Corrigan stated that he liked seven on the
Council, in favor of one two -year term and six four -year terms, so that oach
time four people came up for election. Mrs'. Cain stated that she was for seven
council members but this would depend on the possibility of wcu•ds. She st;ute.l
that she favored at least a majority of council elected at- large. Mr. itinggenlorc
stated that presently he favors a council of seven members, one members being
Iowa Citv Charter Committee Page 3
February 14, 1973
tile, mayor, who would he elected by the voters. Ile further stated that the
council might be larger. Mr. Knight stated that he did not want to sec the
council be too big and that he could go along with seven and that the number
would depend on the number of wards used. Ile further stated that the mayor
should be elected by the voters. Mrs. Davidsen stated she was fur seven
council members if the elections were at- large, mayor elected separately,
and for nine if there were wards.. She further stated that she favored
candidates running for specific seats. Mr. Welt stated that he believed
that five is a workable number but that seven was not mach more of a change
than five. He stated that he favored seven. Mr. Welt further stated that
he likes Mr. Corrigan's earlier proposal of seven council members, four being
elected at -large and three from wards. Mr. DeCounter stated that lie was for
seven council seats no matter if there were at -large elections or wards, Ile
stated that nine was too many members to get the jot) done. Mr. Meardon
stated that he favored a council of seven members, four being elected :tt -large
and three by wards, lie stated that he agreed with Ms, Shipton, that the
ward representative did not need to reside in that ward, lie further stated
that 'he favo "red staggered terms with the ward repres-crtstil�es being ciccte,l -
every two years and the at -large council members. having four -year terms.
Mr. DeCounter stated that he would like to bring fn the present city council
members individually to find out what problems they were having and how input
flowed under the present system. Mr. Corrigan suggested that past council
members also be brought in. Discussion followed and the Committee decided to
invite these people to come to a committee meeting. It was also decided that
the first invitation would go to Mayor Brandt for the Charter Committee meeting
of February 21, 1973. Mr. Rosenstein was directed to prepare a copy of council
members serving Iowa City under the council - manager -at -large form for the meet-
ing of February 1S, 1973. Mrs. Davidsen stated that the Committee might he
criticized for this action and that it should balance this with other consider-
ations, also spending time with people with innovative ideas. Mrs. lain
suggested that the Committee might want to talk to a city administrator who
has had considerable experience.
Discussion next centered around whether the Committee should be swayed by
public opinion or whether it should come up with a proposal that they felt
was best for Iowa City and then sell the proposal to the public.
Mr. Corrigan stated that there is the possibility of using newspaper ballots
to judge public opinion as had been brought up by Mr. Oaks, a professional
consultant. Mr. Meardon stated that this would result in special interest
groups sending in numerous ballots.
The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 5:55 P.M.
Approved by Pat Cain
H
K]
C
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
February 15, 1973
"K ',f. .e .<: "' ,.� ..'e. ';. °>t�t,ifia�,vs:?.b,�
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Welt, Corrigan, naldus, Cain, DeCounter,
Knight, Ringgenberg, Davidsen
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Rosenstein
GUESTS PRESENT: Dorothy Douglass, 1030 F.
502 Grandview Court
Meeting called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Mr
Burlinaton, James Keele,
Meardon.
Mr. Meardon stated that the meeting was being held at the Conference
room and if attendance required the meeting would be moved to the
Council Chambers.
Mr. Rosenstein stated that fourth count census data for Iowa City
was not available in census tracts and thus the Laboratory for
Political Research could not give the Committee an area distribution
of Iowa City's socio- economic variables. Mr. Rosenstein also
apologized for his mistake concerning the date of the public meeting.
Mr. Meardon next summarized the Charter Committee meeting of
February 15, 1973, for Mr. Baldus who had been unable to attend
that meeting. Mr. Baldus stated that at this time he did not want
to express his views as to size and make-up of the council.
Ms. Douglas stated that Action for a Better Community was working
on a proposal containing a form of government to be presented to
the Charter Committee.
Article II Cit Counci (Model City Charter); Discussion was held
as o w et er a omm El
should break down into sub-committees
to consider these subjects.
Section 2.01, osition, Eli ibil1t Election and Term of the
cit counci CO T e Committee eci a to delay giscussion of t is
subject until further study could be made. It was also decided
to deal with this important subject as a whole Committee.
Mr. Ringgenberg questioned why the Committee was using the Model
City Charter since most decisions to be made depended on the
basic form of government the Committee chooses. Mr. Ringgenberq
further stated that the Committee should decide what kind of things
it wants in the Charter. The Committee decided to use the Model
City Charter at least for this meeting.
$ s < t s is st ,tr
`Z-. +�F`.'.2'YSY,'`T':�,.Y; - -a t,,., .- .s.:....,';n, ,. z� 4y:3 °•; " ;�.;?"i� a:4`s'rst„� =..
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 2
February 15, 1973
Section 2.02, Composition, and Expenses of the Council. Mr.
orrigan asReVIf the Committee ecidea to rais- tt c council's
compensation whether the actual decision would have to be made
by the present city council since an increase in the council's
compensation could not become effective during r.he Term in which
the increase was adopted and thus it could not be done by the
next city council operating under a new city charter.
Several of the Committee members expressed the desire to have
increased council compensation and to provide a mechanism
which would take the burden off the council for raising their
own salaries.
Mrs. Cain asked if it was legal to pay at -large council members
more than ward council members.
Mr. Baldus stated that the following phrase could be included
at the end of Section 2.02. "The Council shall appoint a
commission of five people and they shall be known as the Council
Compensation Commission which shall meet from time to time and
recommend to council the salaries the council shall be paid
which shall be commensurate with their responsibilities as
informed policy makers for the city and the time they devote to
this task." Mr. Corrigan stated that he had devised a similar
addition to section 2.02 which reads, "By ordinance the council
shall in consultation with the Iowa City City Compensation
Commission, prescribe the compensation..." Mr. Corrigan slated
that this commission would review other city officier's salaries.
Several of the Committee members expressed the desire to submit
committee comments following each Charter item so as to give
a better understanding of the City Charter.
Discussion was next held on the possibility of writing something
into the Charter which would increase the council's compensation
and then allowing the council to set subsequent compensations
by council ordinance. Mr. Baldus stated that this procedure,
called a schedule, is often used in the writing of state
constitutions.
Discussion was held on whether the amount of the salary would
make a difference in the type of people that would run for the
city council.
It was moved by Mr. Corrigan, and seconded by Mr. Baldus that the
Chair appoint a sub - committee to study the area of compensation.
The motion carried 8 -0 with Mrs. Davidsen abstaining. (Mrs.
Davidsen had just arrived). Mr. Meardon appointed Mr. Baldus,
Mr. Knight, and Mr. welt to the sub - committee.
I
Iowa City Charter Committee Paqe 3
February 15, 1973
Several of the Committee members thuu.,;U it would be a qood idea
to have individual council members set aside a regular time to
be down at the Civic Center and available to anyone who wanted to
come down to discuss policy issues. It was felt that this would
make the council more available. It was also felt by a few of
the Committee members that this might take some of the pressure
off having a ward system because people might have better access
to individual council members.
Section 2.03, Mayor. Mr. Meardon asked the Committee how many
of them felt t e mayor should be elected separately.
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that he did on one condition, that being
that the powers of the mayor are only policy leading powers and
not executive powers. Mr. Corrigan agreed with Mr. Ringgenberg
on this. Mrs. Davidsen stated that this was especially so with
a combination election by wards and at- large. Mr. Baldus stated
that he favored Mr. Ringgenberg's view and he stated that there
was a provision in the National Municipal League's Charter which
dealt with the policy- administration issue, applying to a city
manager or to a mayor. It states "Except for the purpose of
inquiries and investigations under section 2.09 the council or
its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject
to the direction and supervision of the manager solely through the
manager, and neither the council nor its members shall give orders
to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately."
The Committee went around the table expressing their opinions
as to whether there should be an elected mayor. The Committee
unanimously expressed that at this time they favored the election
of the mayor by the voters.
Discussion next centered around the Kammerer article on
elected mayors in Florida, a synopsis of which was distributed to
the Committee by Mr. Rosenstein. Mr. Baldus asked Mr. Rosenstein
if there had been a provision in these cities which protected
the administration from council meddling. Mr. Rosenstein stated
that Kammerer had not mentioned whether such a provision had been
in effect in Florida. He further stated that his research has
shown that there have been studies which have shown that elected
mayors interfere with the administration and others which show
that the elected mayor and manager form a team. several of the
Committee members stated that it would be very important that the
mayor's and the manager's role be well defined. The Committee felt
this could be done in both the charter and in the charter comments.
Mr. Baldus said that this type of commentary was on Page 18 of the
National Municipal League's Model City Charter.
E
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 4
February, 15,1973
Discussion was held on whether the Cnarter Committee wanted a
city manager for Iowa City. Several members of the Committee
stated that they had not been persuaded that the problem in
Iowa City is based upon the fact that Iowa City has a city
manager or that another form of government would work better
than a council- manager form. Ms. Douglass suggested that the
CommiUee look into a strong -mayor with an administrative
assistant. Mr. Corrigan stated that if Iowa City goes the route
of a professional administrator that this position should be
given the safeguards from meddling which would not happen with
a strong mayor. There was also the problem of what happens if
there was a bad mayor who would be in charge of administration
for four years, whereas if there was a bad city manager he could
be fired at anytime.
Mr. Baldus, Mr. Corrigan, Mr. Knight, Mr. welt, Mrs. Cain,
Mr. DeCounter, Mr. Meardon and Mrs. Davidsen expressed that they
presently favored retaining a city manager form of government.
Several of the members said they either wanted to weaken the
manager, or strengthen the council in the policy making process.,
Mr. Ringgenberg stated to the Committee that with home rule, cities
in Iowa now had options as to what the powers and duties of the
manager should be.
Discussion was next held on the International City Management Asso-
ciation and what its 'role is.
General discussion followed concerning giving the council a staff
and office space and in institutionalizing these changes Mr.
DeCounter stated that an attempt should be made to get the council
and the City staff to work closer together.
Mr. Corrigan made the suggestion that there could be a citizens'
committee involved in the hiring of the city manager. Discussion
followed on what the manager's qualifications should be and if
there should be something in the charter specifying the
qualifications. The Committee generally expressed that there should
be no written qualifications in the charter but that there might
be some general qualifications listed in the comments.
General discussion next centered around the hirinq practices for the
City and the relationship that the Civil Service Law and the City's
affirmative action program had on these practices. Mr. Corrigan
expressed the desire to include an affirmative action clause in
the city charter. Mr. Rosenstein was directed to secure copies of
the City's Affirmative Action Program, and of the State's Civil
Service Law.
Section 2.04 Prohibitions. Part A of this section is a quote from
i
Iowa City Charter Committee
February 15, 1973
section 59.9 of the City Code of Tnwa
to this section.
r
u
Page 5
There were no object tins
Part D. Council interference with staff. Discussion centered
around the appointment of the city attorney. Mr. Meardon stated
that he felt the city manaqer should not appoint the city attorney
because the council is entitled to independent legal advice but
that the legal assistant should work closely with the staff.
Mr. Daldus stated that the city attorney has considerable input
into policy making and by lowering this person's role the council
would be forced to make decisions rather than rely solely on legal
opinion. Several of the Committee members felt that both the
staff and the council should have completely separate legal
advisors. The Committee next discussed the power of the city
attorney. It was expressed that the city attorney should be
appointed by council and the legal assistant be appointed by
the city manager. Mr. Corrigan also stated that it might be
wise to separate the functions of chief legal advisor and chief
legal representative.
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that the council - manager form functions
best as a team and thus the council and the manager should agree
as to who should be the city attorney although it should be a
council appointed position.
Subsection C. Interference with administration. Mr. Daldus
stated that a sub - committee should examine employment practices
and dangers to the civil service system which could be created
by a strong mayor.
Mr. Meardon next asked for the Committee's permission to go to
the City Manager to ask for reallocation of priorities of the
clerk- typist position so that the Charter Committee could get
first priority in the use of that one position, regardless of
whether it takes more than the allocated 20 hours. Mr. Corrigan
moved and Mrs. Cain seconded that the Chairman be given
authorization to go to the City Manager to make the above request.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00.
Approved by Pat Cain
n
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
February 21, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Knight, Welt, Baldus, Rignu.nherti,
Corrigan, Davidsen
MEMBERS ABSENT: De Counter
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: Ms. Jane Hook, 22 N. Gilbert, Rev. Robert Welsh,
Chairman for Citizens for a Better Iowa City, and
Ms. Dorothy Douglass,.ln3n F. Burlington
Mr. Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Minutes of
the previous meeting were not available.
Rev. Robert Welsh presented a letter to the Committee ccmposed by
the Citizens for a Better Iowa City Committee. (Attached) This
group has approximately 175 members, twenty members being active,
and fifteen members being present at the meeting this letter was
drawn up. After Rev. Welsh's presentation, various: ^(,-hers of
the Charter Committee asked Rev. Welsh what his committee thought
the major weaknesses of the present form of oovernrent were.. Rev.
Welsh gave the followino comments:
1. Size of the Council
2. Lack of responsiveness
3. Quality of members on the Council
4. Lack of competence and coordination
5. Lack of communications between the Council and boards and
commissions
6. Council doesn't make information on which they base decisions
known to the public
Mr. Meardon thanked Rev. welsh for his presentation.
Ms. Dorothy Douglass presented to the Committee copies of Action for
a Better Community's proposal for a form of municipal government for
consideration of the Committee. A presentation will be made to the
Committee at a later meeting.
Councilman Connell attended this meeting to answer questions asked by
the Committee. In response, Mr. Connell stated the following:
1. He spent about fourteen to sixteen hours a week or Citv
business.
2. He thinks Councilmen salaries should be increased, perhaps
to $125 per month with the Mayor's salary increased to $250 per month.
F
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 2
February 21, 1973
Pt —paps this increase would encourage more people to run.
3. Ile doesn't see increasing salaries to the height of other
government policymakers; part of the councilman's motivation is a
willingness to contribute to the community.
4. Personal expenses incurred while carrying out Council duties
are a part of the contribution to the community.
5. Councilmen have enough time and should be prepared to take the
time to become knowledgeable about the matters that come before the
Council.
6. The Council does not break down into committees except for
the Rules Committee and Nominating Committee (for Boards and Commissions.)
7. He does not feel the need for clerical ,end /or research staff
and has never had trouble getting to a department head or the City
Manager to get information.
B. He believes the information received from the City administration
is objective.
9. He does believe citizens come to him and to the Council as a
whole if they have a conflict.
10. If office space at the Civic Center were made available to
him for the public to stop by, he would use .it, but he does not think it
is needed; he has tried to make himself available both at home and at
work.
11. He favors the present method of electing the Mayor and would
not like to risk the possibility of conflict between a popularly -
elected Mayor and a City Manager. Issues causing such conflict might
occur if the Mayor and City Manager had different theories.
12. He does not think a seven or nine - member Council would be anv
more efficient for government of make communications any easier.
13. He gets both compliments and complaints from the public as
the attention paid them by the staff.
14. He doesn't feel that an ombudsman would be needed.
15. He thinks that it is important to have Boards and Commissions;
the Council leans and depends on the input from these, lie also feels
that policy initiation comes from Boards and Commissions, but no
matter how much outside help is solicited, the Council still has to
make the decision.
16. He feels that it wouldn't make much difference as to the cost
of runninq for election under ward system because the opponent would
still set how much you would have to spend.
17. He feels that the weekly formal meeting of the Council is a
much better arrangement than the previous procedure.
18. He doesn't feel that a strong flavor would necessarily fill
the gap in leadership and initiating policy.
Mr. Meardon thanked Mr. Connell for attending the meeting and answering
the Committee's questions.
Mr. Meardon then announced that Councilman White would he at the
Adh February 22nd meeting.
Iowa City Charter committee Paqe l
February 21, 1973
The Committee, after some discussion, directed Mr. Rosenstein to make
copies of the questions that had been asked councilman Connoll to use
as a master set for the other Councilmen attending the Committee
meetings.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:40 P.M.
Approved by Pat Cain
F
L °'
�.. e5f .! lr 15x �\ � t I �d• 'f"' -. �F�^ j % 4 -1
Charter Committee
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Bear Friends:
C
February 21, 1913
Citizens For A Better Iowa City (CBIC) has been and is dedicated to work
for a better Iowa City.
We are aware of the importance of the work of the Charter Committee. It is
imperative that you recommend what you believe, in light of all infuiinatiun,
to be in the best long -range interest of the total community. This, and this
alone, we hopes will be the basis of your recommendation.
We are aware that the effectiveness of any form of government is dependent
upon the quality of persons elected and employed and upon a concerned and
informed citizenry.
In our discussions to date, we have come to four specific recommendations
concerning the form of government that we believe is in the best long -range
interest of the total community.
1. We believe it is imperative for there to be a professional city manager
as the top administrator. When we listed the major strength of our pres-
ent form of government, we listed items such as: professionalism of
administration and administrative competence and expertise.
2. Two - thirds favor election of a mayor by the city council from among its
members. Items mentioned in this consideration included: relationship
between mayor and city manager; relationship among council members; role of
the council - desire for a strong council as contrasted to a strong mayor.
3. We favor enlarging the council to seven to nine members, with a preference
for seven. Items mentioned in this consideration included: optimum size
of a productive group; the possible broadening of the base of the council.
4. We favor the at -large election of councilmen. The best alternative to
this, we believe, would be at -large election by positions. In our consid-
eration, the following points were made: the nature of our community does
not lend itself to wards; the importance of government relating to the
total community.
We are aware that there are other items of importance, which are also inter-
related to this. In light of our understanding of your process, we felt it
wise to make this input at this time and indicate that we will address our-
selves to other items at our next meeting.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Welsh,
Cl. airman, CB IC
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
Febriiary 28, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Cain, DeCounter, Welt, Baldus, Meardon, Corrigan
Davidsen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ringgenberg, Knight
Guests Present: Dorothy Douglass, 1030 E. Burlington; Margaret
MacDonald, R. R. 6; Councilman Loren Hickerson
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Mr. Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M.
Councilman Hickerson, present at this meeting, stated the follow-
ing in response to questions asked him:
1. Hours involved in Council duties vary greatly from week
to week, month to month. He spends a minimum of four to six hours
a week related only to Tuesday Council meetings. From this base
on, he gets into a wide variety of situations (trips with staff,
research, etc.). Mayor spends a great deal more time.
2. He feels that the Council should elect the Mayor because
(a) the citizenry thinks that an elected Mayor is endowed with more
powers than a Mayor elected by Council, (b) He thinks that an at -large
elected Mayor and the Council would be more apt to have conflicts
which he doesn't think is too healthy, and (c) The Mayor, if
elected by the Council, is quite clearly the majority of the
Council's choice, which means that there is a pattern (he serves by
virtue of having been chosen by the Council).
3. He thinks that enlarging the Council makes good sense
but would be skeptical about raising it beyond seven; an increase
from five to seven is a little overdue because (a) a five - member
Council can be troublesome at times in terms of an absence of one
member, 6(b) the Council has not worked as much as it might by
Committees in part because of its size.
4. He thinks that the manager form of government is the
only sound form for Iowa City based on his experience.
5. He feels that undue emphasis is being given to the
overburdening role of the staff in policy. The three ways that
Council considers policy are from: (a) matters brought by the
Mayor or other members of the Council, (b) people of the community,
and (c) from the city staff and boards and commissions. He feels
that to assume that just because a matter comes through the manager's
office that it has been influenced, is "poppycock."
6. He doesn't think the nature of the election makes any
difference as far as public going to Council with their problems
or concerns. He doesn't think that an elected Mayor will receive
any more calls than a Mayor selected by the Council.
7. He feels that wards can lead to dangerous assumptions.
He doesn't feel that groups that aren't represented now would be
represented under the ward system.
8. He feels that there are certain groups that aren't
represented.(no woman on the Council)
0
r;=
iy
Iowa City Charter Committee Page 2
February 28, 1973
9. He thinks it extremely risky to find mechanisms to
(a) reduce the advocacy of the staff or (b) accentuate the advo-
cacy of individuals or organized groups.
10. He doesn't feel any extra secretarial or research
staff necessary, he depends on City Hall for that.
11. He feels that the salary for the Council members
should be more realistic for the nature of time spent in a
highly volunteer service. He would be reluctant to see it go
too high.
12. The use of Council Committees makes sense to him and
a reason why the Council should be enlarged. He would agree to
certain standing committees (Financial Planning, Social Programs,
etc.)
13. Alternatives are very often a part of staff advocacy.
He feels that Council is as much to blame for not instructing
staff as to this.
14. He thinks they may be coming to the point where they
have to choose between the highly
the Council and more broadly deleg a
commissions.
15. He feels that research
wouldn't rule it out.
16. He feels it necessary f o
every Council meeting.
17. He's not sure that reca
and stability in city government.
it should not be easily instituted.
18. He feels a Councilman's
19. He has no objection to i
20. He is leerie of things
solutions than they are. He feels
government composed of council and
heads who are so good you don't ne
centralized responsibility of
ted authority among boards and
assistance might be helpful- -
r City Attorney to attend
11 provisions cause continuity
if there is a recall provision,
term should be four years.
nitiative and referendum.
that people look to as broader
that the ideal goal is a city
a Mayor and manager and department
ed an ombudsman.
21. He would perhaps use office space at the Civic Center
from time to time but not routinely. He feels that it has been
unfortunate that independent councilmen could not have a place to
meet with the public other than at the Council meetings.
Mr. Meardon thanked Mr. Hickerson for his presentation.
Mr. ealdus urged that the Committee get independent legal approval
of the Charter before it goes to the City Attorney.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:40 P.M.
f.
..a -c.ia, v -.. x.s�n.m 7�4a u�m wasevmavaa. [W — �. – tvdaemz — ^^°" 63 'Y0.iTIDKf,(213'0.'u'L'i.'>M�li�
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 1, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, DeCounter, Ringgenberg, Welt, Baldus,
Corrigan, Davidsen, Cain
MEMBERS ABSENT: Knight
Guests Present: Jack Esbin, 3117 Alpine Ct.; Margaret MacDonald,
R. R. 6; Joe Zajicek, R. R. 5; Dorothy Douglass,
1030 E. Burlington
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Mr. Meardon called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Minutes of the February 14 meeting were unanimously approved as
submitted, moved by Davidsen and seconded by Cain.
Minutes of the February 15 meeting were unanimously approved as
amended with the date of the minutes changed from February 16 to
February 15, moved by Davidsen and seconded by Cain.
Minutes of the February 21 meeting were unanimously approved as
submitted, moved by Corrigan and seconded by Welt.
Minutes of the February 22 meeting were deferred until the next
meeting.
Mr. Jack Esbin, Ms. Dorothy Douglass,and Mr. Joe Zajicek, represent-
ing Action for a Better Community, gave a presentation regarding
the handouts Ms. Douglass gave the Committee at a previous meeting.
Mr. Esbin gave a brief background on this group, stating that they
have had several meetings on the subject of the home rule charter.
At their meeting two complaints were heard most:
1. The present form of government was not responsive.
2. The Council was not involved in enough policymaking.
ABC then pulled from different forms of government and submitted
this form of government for the consideration of the Charter
Committee. (See attached plan) It was also the recommendation of
ABC to give Council members a minimum salary of $400 a month or
more, and a full -time Mayor from $18- 25,000 a year.
ABC recommended two -year terms for Council as a psychological
factor to encourage more people to run.
The Council would be involved in administering policy so that
policy would not get lost by staff.
Mr. Zajicek stated in closing that this proposal is a very general
form of government and that various groups submitting input for
any form of government give the Charter Committee a better feel
of the public pulse.
-al
P
E
E
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 1, 1973
El
Page 2
Mr. Esbin stated that the make -up of ABC.is fifteen to twent,
membPrn, that thirty to forty people commented on the first
draft proposal to submit to the Charter Committee, and that
this group has been in existence one year.
Mr. Meardon thanked Ms. Douglass, Mr. Esbin, and Mr. 2ajicek
for their presentation.
The Committee then discussed the number of Council members,
length of terms, and wards.
Mr. Baldus moved for a straw proposal that there be an odd
number of persons on the Council, one elected for a two -year
term and the rest for staggered terms, in any election there
would be an even number elected (Reference -page 4 of the National
Municipal League Model Charter) Mr. Corrigan seconded the
sense of the motion. Unanimously carried.
Mr. Baldus then moved on a straw proposal that there be a nine -
member City Council, seconded by Mrs. Davidson. Meardon, Baldus,
Davidson, voted for and Cain, Corrigan, Welt, DeCounter, Ringgenberg,
voted against.
Mr. Corrigan moved by straw proposal that there be a seven - member
City Council, seconded by Mr. DeCounter. Welt, Cain, Corrigan,
DeCounter, Ringgenberg voted in favor and Davidson, Baldus, Meardon,
voted against this proposal.
The Committee then discussed election of the Mayor by the Council
vs. election of the Mayor by the people.
A straw motion was then made by Mr. Corrigan that there be direct
election of the Mayor as a member of the City Council and that
the same powers be given him as in the present system. Mr. Baldus
seconded the motion. Corrigan, Ringgenberg, Baldus, Meardon, Cain,
and DeCounter voted in favor and Welt and Davidson voted against.
Motion was made by Mr. Baldus for a four -year term of office for
the Mayor, seconded by Mrs. Cain. After some discussion, Corrigan,
Cain, Baldus, Meardon, Davidson voted in favor and Welt, DeCounter,
and Ringgenberg voted against.
Mr. Ringgenberg moved the Councilmen all be elected at- large. Mr.
DeCounter seconded the motion. Cain, Corrigan, Davidson, DeCounter,
Welt, Ringgenberg voted in favor and Meardon and Baldus voted against.
Mr. Corrigan moved for election of Council by the place system.
Motion was withdrawn for consideration after more discussion and
additional research.
Suggestion was made to have three meetings the week of March 5 -9,
with a Councilman present at the March 7 meeting. It was decided
to have an extra meeting Tuesday, March 6.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
0
0
Action for a Better Community submits this form of municipal government
for the consideration of the Charter Commit:d°,
FO RATi
9 person counalb consistii% of 1 elected ir.m each of _ cards
2 elected at -large
1 full -time mayor elected at -large
TERM'; a
2 -year terms with a limit of 3 ennsecutivo terms. Elections to be
held on odd numbered years.
COMMITTEES i
'-here will be 4 committees that operate the city.
hiblic Safetvi protection, health and sanitation
W1jlc wog i transportation and utilities
Community Resouj=.js narks/recreation, planning /zoning„ urban renewal
Finn v budget
I
he Committees will consist of the mayor and 2 councilversons as apooirte,l
by the mayor.
Each councilperaon shall serve on I of the Committtea.
Each Committee will elect its own chairperson.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEESi
1. Initiate policy to present to the council for its action.
2. Implement the policy adopted in their area.
3. There will be one full -time staff member responsible for the full -
time administration of each area.
a. He will be hired by the full council upon the recommendation
of that area comr.ittee.
b, He will recomment' hirinr and firing of staff under him,
c, He will work under the direction of the committee.
4. Appoint, with the approval of the council, citizen Boards and
Commissions to act in an advisory and cooperative rapacity to the
committees,
F]
H@:iR1N51111L1TlES OF THE HAYORI
1, Be the executive of the city,
2. Be the public representative for the city.
1. Nccomaend applicants for the position of Administrative Coordinator.
4, Appoint the committees every two years following the formation of
the new a ^uncll,
5, Be a voting member of the council and its chairperson.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATCRs
1, Coordinate the entire city staff,
2. Attend all committee meetings,
3. Assist the mayor in the performance of his duties,
4. Act as general professional resource for the council,
RESPONSIBILITIES OF ME COUNCIL AS A UIIOLEi
1. Initiate, approve and oversee the implementation of policy.
2. Approve the hiring ►nd firing of city staff members.
3. Approve the appointments to Hoards and Commissiona as submitted by
the committees or citizens.
RMPONSIBILITIF CF THE CITIZENSi
1, Serve on Boards and Commissions that are formed by the council
committees and report to them in an advisory capaoity.
2. Have the power of public initiative, referendum and recall.
gUSAl_ Cho men_tsr
1. ABC encourages the Chaster Committee in its concept of the role of
the City Attornies.
2. The Council and Committee meetings should be held at regularly
scheduled times that are convenient to the public.
3. All committee meetings should be conducted under the provisions in
the state code covering open meetings,
4. Council numbers should hold regular office hours for the purponn of
meeting with the public.
MINUITS
Iowa City Charter Committee
February 22, 1973,
MINBERS PRESENT: Baldus, Knight, Welt, Cain, ?leardon, Uavidsen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ringgenberg, Corrigan, IleCounter
Guesu, Present: Councilman A. Patrick IPhite; Pat Anderson, S09 Davenport;
James Keele; Gary Hayward, III S. Governor; .John Wchr, N. 118
Currier Hall; Nan Penman, 73.1 Stanloy; lilenore Bowers, 512
Rund011.
Patt gain called the meeting to order. Minutes of the Pehruary 14 and IS meetings
were deferred.
Councilman White stated the following responses to the questions asked by the
Committee:
1. Ile has actually kept track of the hours he spends on council duties
twice, once it was seventeen hours and the other was twenty-one.
2. lie doesn't think that $7S a month salary is enough for being a council
member.
3. Ile thinks that the salary for council members should he raised but thinks
that it is very difficult to compare councilmen's salaries with those of other
p3 +l icy makers.
4. lie doesn't think that there is a socio- economic term to give a representa-
tive segment of the community. At or most of the members of the Council are
Professional or owners of businesses or University staff but there are a lot of
good people besides
S. lie spends very little out -of- pocket cash, but added that time was more
taken than anything.
G. Ile doesn't feel that he has enough time to become knowledgeable about
all the matters that come before the council. Ile feels that this is partly due
to the fault of the new meeting procedure. Ile feels very strongly about informal
meetings and feels that the Council needs to devote more meeting time to this than
at the present.
7, lie thinks that a large number on the Council might offset some of the time
burden of trying to cover the increasing number of meetings and organizations that
need to be covered. liowever, he feels this would not make any significant inroads
into the time required.
8. The Council reaches the point where they must delegate some decision
making power to authorities whenever the electorate is ready, but he's not sure
that at this level of government that there is likely to he delegation to any
great extent. Certainly the decision making power in whatever aspects are not
policy oriented must he clearly delegated.
9. n e Council does use council committees most assuredly and increasingly
to the credit of the Council.
10• The Council would and does benefit from having clerical and resr:n ch
,taff--the City Clerk, City Manager, and City ,Attorney.
11. Ile would use office space at the Civic Center if' provided for meeting
and •Iiscussing with the public but feels that we have much higher aPacv pruoritio,
th:ut IhaI - The Citizens' ,Advisory Committee of the .Johnson County Regional Planning
t•nmmission, which is fn development, could become the citizens' forum or soundint;
boar,l.
x
:.r... -. _� _, �. � .,kY -.�R': 4l"'c'.nf..s?_.. Y:^ii';°;v -F•' .. °Sloe .. t�t!S� �.r jS >An sr+..:� � 3. .'..:,-
Iowa City Charter committee
Pcbruary :2, 197.1
Page 2
12. 14• roughly estimated that 10% to 200 of the actions that the Council
takes on subsequent questions are affirmations of a recommendation of :1 board
or commission.
13. lie feels that the most significant portions of recommendations that
the Council acts on come from the City staff.
1.1. When the City staff makes recommendations, he doesn't think that alterna-
tives are presented as often as he would like. lie feels that alternatives are
more often presented in the past year than his other two years of office.
15. lie would recommend more meeting time for informal discussion without
being limited to a scheduled item if making policy recommendations to the Council.
IG. Ile feels that the reports from staff attempt to bring out both Good
and bad points but don't always succeed. Ile feels it's very difficult to
criticize ,your own proposal.
17. lie hasn't come to the conclusion whether the structure should include
wards, but feels that it would be desirable to give the public the opportunity
to vote on it. Ile feels that there are advantages and disadvantages to wants,
that there is a risk, if you have a total ward system, of having a Councilman
from a specific ward not being concerned with anything other than in his own
ward.
18. lie believes very much in the City Manager form of government for lowa
City and feels it's the hest and appropriate and most workable, but can he improved
if some of the policy burden is taken off rho City %tanager's shoulders.
19. He thinks that a popularly - elected mayor and a city manager would clash,
but he has more faith in the electorate than that.
Z0. lie thinks that the function of an ombudsm.m is very beneficial but doesn't
think it necessitates having one as such, that there is room with the present
structure to perform the same function. However, it is difficult to perform that
function in the existing structure for the same reason that's it is difficult to
Ile presented with alternative in staff data and this is the reluctance of the
individual to criticize his own product. lie feels that neighborhood meetings
would loan toward the ombudsman function.
21. lie feels that the staff is presenting data objectively, and will improve
as time goes by, as the City Manager trains and exposes his staff to his own
approach.
22. Ile stated that informal citizen input is very seldom in putting alternatives
to the staff unless the citizen hears about it and is concerned enough to inquire
about it.
23. Ile doesn't think that it is inappropriate for an individual citizen who
believes in something to try to persuade staff on Council action, however ho thinks
that it is inappropriate if the staff member doesn't recognize it as such.
2d, lie thinks that an elected at -large mayor might have differences with the
council, but also thinks that this would be a healthy situation. lie feels that
thv most diverse viewpoints obtained from policymakers make a healthy local
government.
25. lie thinks that the council should consist either of five or seven member:,
if wards being proposed, it should be seven.
.'b. lie feels that if a larger number of members were on the Council they
would flood to operate in committees.
,.:7. Ile stated that a Councilmember did not serve as oxofficio member. with
boards and commissions when deliberating on matters, but there are instances where
ill(! Council as a whole meets with boards and commissions. (Example: change in
municipal law)
l uaa City (hurt er Cununi(Lee
February 22, 1973
Page 3
28. He state(] that he hasn't thought out the question of having three
or four wards if there were seven members on the Council.
2!1. lie stated that there was a feeling in the community for wards as a
matter of responsiveness, but there are other ways to answer this, perhaps
through the Citizens' Advisory Committee.
10, lie does not feel that it would be desirable for the Council to Function
through subcommittees because you would run a real risk of bringing the staff
headon into the policymakers. Ile feels that the Council's committee work should
take place in an atmosphere where a Councilman is not arguing with staff; other-
wise a staff report or position might tend to be influenced by a view of the
poIicymaker.
31. Board and Commissions members are selected by suggestions from Council
or citizens and submitted to the Mayor. The Nominating Committee makes recommendation
to the Council who invariably approve it and the Mayor makes the appointment.
32. lie feels that the at -large elected Mayor assuming more of a policy role
would also have the effect of making better use of the Council's time and would
become more of an originator of policy recommendations and to the extent that
he would be viewed in a larger role, the Council would spend more time looking
at these suggestions.
33, lie doesn't feel that the caliber of the mayor improves by election of
the people, but the additional policy responsibility that needs to he performed
can only adequately be achieved through election at -Inrge rather than by the
balance of the Council,
34, lie stated that recognizing the mayor as primary policyleader and spokesman
is certainly an enlargement of present responsibilities.
35. Ile feels that other Councilmen under the at -large elected mayor would
still he able to initiate policy, and that a stronger policy- oriented mayor should
have an increased salary.
36. lie stated that the cost of running for election by wards could be reduced
but he is not sure that it would be.
37. Ile stated that policy initiation does come from boards and commissions
but that more could come.
38. Ile feels that a recall provision would he desirable for the Charter but
it should be very carefully written and extremely well thought out.
39. Ile favors a four -year term for Cc••ncil members.
Ms. Davidsen issued copies of a report of a study done by a student working_
on his Ph.D. at the University of Iowa. The study covered nine ocmairdties in
Iowa. It stated that nary citizens do not approadl goveninent officials directly
when they have a problei, rather they seek informal representation such as a
friend, neighbor, or co-worker who is active politically and knows his way aroluxi
City Hall. The student called these people policital links. •the student break~
these political links dawn into socio-eccriotlic backgrounds and finds that these
IMitical links are in the same socio- eeawnic backgrounds as public officials.
Mr. Baldus then asked Mr. Mlite if that held true in Iowa City. Mr. t,hite
stated that he did not think so but he stated that a Councilman tends to
associate with others of his awn socio- eeor"dc status and, as a result, he is
AUL nrjre exposed to the oonoerns of those people than he is to the entire canuanity.
M irylividual atteirpting to raise a specific question, in hhite's exix--rience,
very rarely asks anyone else to ask for this person. lie has also observes: that
a majority of calls or questions fmn the public do not done flan Ulu so- call(tcl
higher eoonanic and social levels.
Iowa City Charter Committee
1:011111arY 22, 1973
Pago .1
Mr. Ifl1iry "stated that he appreciated the invitation and appreciates the tune
110ing devoted by the Charter Committee.
Mr. Meardon thanked Mr. White for his participation in the meeting.
Mr. Rosenstein presented to the Committee a -sketch of what three wards might
look like in Iowa City based on population. This sketch was hriefIN. discussed.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
Approved by Patt Cain
��.. �m.. �e; r- frc'tx:,'�.1t,'ss�.vw.i.YS.iC „�T°�:8w � ••��''��:g+ �+;}
�1
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter. Committee
v'la L ch 6 , 19'13
Meeting Held at Public Library Auditorium
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Welt, Knight, Baldus, Corrigan,
Ringgenberg, DeCounter, Davidsen
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: Elizabeth Diecke, 15 Forest Glen
Mr. Meardon called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Mrs. Diecke stated the following points to the Committee:
1. The fact that the Charter Committee is in existence
shows that there is a problem in Iowa City.
2. Part of the dissatisfaction is with the present at -large
elections. People aren't able to vote the preference, but rather
they must vote for a candidate who is strong enough to prevent another
person from winning.
3. This negative voting could be solved by the place system of
at -large elections.
4. That the Committee should also consider nomination by wards
and election at- large.
5. That wards wouldn't make a difference in Council represent-
ation and that they could be gerrymandered.
6. That wards should be drawn before the special election on
the proposed home rule charter so that people will know in advance
what ward they will be in.
7. That there should be a longer time period between the filing
date, the primary election, and the general election so that the
issues can become more focused and the voters can become better informed
on how each candidate stands. This period should be eight weeks.
8. That people should realize that knowledge is power and that
the Council must do its homework.
9. That under the present system, there is a lack of a focal
point of leadership with there being no defined place where policy
originates.
10. That the Mayor should be elected by the voters so that this
person would be more of a policy making leader.
11. That under the present at -large elections, many people are
just voting for one person and thus candidates are elected by less
than a majority.
12. That the place system of Council elections would allow
minorities more of a chance to win seats on the Council because they
could delay filing until they can see a "weak" seat to run for.
Mr. Corrigan cited a letter from Mr. William Boyd of the National
Municipal League which suggested that nomination by wards and election
at -large may be the answer to giving representation to the Chicano
population in Dallas who were a sizable minority but not heavily
concentrated in one geographical area.
Iowa City Charter Committee page 2
March 6, 1973
Discussion next centered on whether one seat on the seven - member
Council should be a two -year term. This would have the, effect of
assuring that a majority of the Council seats would be up for re-
election every two years. Further,several of the Committee members
felt that this seat might allow a qualified person to run without
having to make a four -year commitment.
Mr. Corrigan moved that there be a seven- member Council with the
Mayor being one of these members, and that there shall be five
Council seats being for four years, the Mayor's seat for four
years and one Council . seat for two years. Mr. Baldus seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that there be place elections for the Mayor only
and that the traditional at -large method of electing the City
Council be used for the other seats with the winning candidate
getting the lowest number of votes for the non - mayoral seats
serving a two -year term. Mr. Corrigan seconded the motion and
it passed five to four with Baldus, Welt, Knight, Meardon, and
Corrigan voting for the motion, and Davidsen, Ringgenberg, Cain,
and DeCounter dissenting.
Mr. Meardon suggested the idea that there be a residency requirement
that an individual candidate must live in an area in order to be able
to run for certain seats but that all candidates would be elected at-
large.
Discussion next centered on allowing initiative and referendum. Mr.
Corrigan moved that the Committee express itself in favor of initiative
and referendum. Mrs. Cain seconded this motion and it passed unanimously.
Discussion was held on what percentage of the registered voters or
of the people voting for mayor should be required for the petition
to have an initiative or referendum issue placed on the ballot. The
Committee felt that this percentage should be high enough so that it
must be a concerted effort to get issue placed on the ballot, but that
the number should not be too great so that it would make this process
impossible.
Mr. Baldus moved that the petition for initiative or referendum must
contain signatures equal in number to at least 10% of the people voting
for the election of the mayor. Mr. Corrigan seconded this motion. The
vote in this motion was deferred until additional information could be
obtained. Mr. Rosenstein was instructed to prepare a list of percentages
of registered voters and of people voting in the last Council election.
Mr. Meardon suggested that there might be a requirement that the people
circulating the petition would have to post a bond and if the issue
did not receive a certain percentage of votes this bond would be used
to pay for the election.
n
i
G
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 6, 1973 Page. 3
Discussion was next held on whether there should be any regulations
as to when there should be an election held on the initiative or
referendum issues. Several suggestions were made on how to do this:
(1) The election on these issues could he held only when there is a
general election.
(2) That there could be two times a year when there would be an
election on these issues, once at a general election and once at a
special election.
(3) That there could be varying requirements concerning when the
issues would be placed on the ballot, such that a certain percentage
would be needed to place the issue on the ballot for a general election
and higher percentage needed for the issue to be placed on the ballot
in a special election.
(4) That there be a certain percentage for the issue to be brought to
Council and a higher percentage which would require it to go to the
voters.
Mr. Rosenstein stated that there were two types of initiative, one
with the citizenry writing the ordinance and one with the citizens
initiating the policy but not writing the ordinance. Mr. Rosenstein
also stated that the National Municipgl League Model City Charter
prohibits initiative power over certain areas such as the budget or
personnel. Mrs. Davidsen stated that she would get the cost of holding
an election.
The Committee next discussed recall. Mr. Corrigan moved that there
should not be recall in the Charter. Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion
passed unanimously. The Committee did desire to have the vote against
recall explained in their final report to Council.
Discussion was held on the Committee employing outside counsel to
review the City Charter. Mr. Meardon and Mrs. Davidsen, who were the
sub - committee on this, agreed to seek counsel this week.
Discussion was next held on appointment of the City Attorney. Mr.
Meardon reviewed for the Committee the Committee of the Bar's recommend-
ations on the City Attorney. Mr. Baldus moved that the hiring of legal
officials be left to the discretion of the City Council. Mr. Ringgenberg
seconded the motion and it passed eight to one, with Mr. Corrigan
dissenting.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
S� _SiY(ul- nv.�Yp�AJW';4&E1E"Y ado �ZN %.:J.
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 7, 1973
1
MEAS ERS PRESENT: Meardon, Corrigan, DeCounter, Welt, Davidsen, Baldus,
Cain, Knight .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ringgenberg
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: Mayor Brandt; Della Grizel, 1530 Sheridan; Barton
Stone, 1219 Quadrangle; Ellis Simler, 1920 Western
Road.
Mr. Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M.
Mrs. Davidsen moved that the minutes of February 28 be approved as
read. Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. DeCounter moved that the minutes of March 1 be approved as read.
Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The minutes
of February 22, 1973, were deferred.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mayor Brandt stated the
following:
1. That the Mayor devoted more time than other Council members.
The Mayor is in the Civic Center at least one -half hour to one hour
a day and he devotes twenty hours a week minimum to his duties. Some
of the Mayor's duties are to handle Council mail, which is done in a
team approach with the City Manager, signing all of the legal documents
of the City, and discussing with the Manager and department heads the
daily happenings of the City. He further stated that the time he devotes
depends on what issues are in front of the Council and that he still
has time enough to run a business and to devote time to other civic
activities.
2. That the difference between being Mayor and being a Councilman in
regard to the amount of involvement of the Mayor is fantastic.
3. That the Mayor and Manager must work as a team because neither can
do it by themselves.
4. That he has had differences with the City Managers in Iowa City but
he doesn't always air those in public.
5. The outstanding characteristic of:City Managers is professionalism.
6. That the Mayor should not be elected because individuals have a
tendency to think they have more power than they may have and there can't
help but be conflict between the Manager and the Mayor,especially over
administration.
7. That he can get all the information he wants from the department
heads but that the Council should go through the Manager in giving
direction or in filing a complaint.
8. That a certain amount of recommendations from staff could be called
getting policy but that it still needs Council approval.
9. That policy is generated from the staff, from Boards and Commissions,
from citizens, and from individual Council members.
10. That if the staff makes policy, it is the fault of the Council.
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 7, 1973 Page 2
11. That when he is developing a policy, he investigates the budget
implications of that policy to see if it is feasible before he brings
it to the Council floor.
12. That Boards and Commissions play an important role in policy form-
ation and that most policy suggestions the Council receive are referred
to a Board or Commission.
13. That he is concerned with the relationship between the Council
and Boards and Commissions and the Charter Committee should address
itself to getting better communication between the Council and Boards
and Commissions. He further stated that he is concerned with the lack
of direction of Boards and Commissions and the unclarity of their role.
He cited as an example that the Boards and Commissions minutes may not
be very detailed and thus at Council meetings he must ask staff what
happened at their meetings.
14. That he doesn't feel Council Committees would help in policy
formation because each Council member must make a decision and thus
he must have the information directly.
15. That Boards and Commissions' recommendations play an important
role and that in order to overrule one he must substantiate his reasons
for being against it.
16. That increased Council size won't decrease each Council member's
work load, but that he is not against going to seven members.
17. That wards scare the daylights out of him because in the age of
professionalism he believes the purest form of government is the
Council- Manager -at -Large form. He cited several examples of what has
happened in other cities with wards, i.e.: (a) The Council swapped
zoning, (b) The Council swapped dutch elm tree removal. He further
stated that trading services to please individual Council members is
not the way to have efficient government run in the best interests of
the City.
18. That he doesn't believe that the Council is not responsible and
that they have set policy that is equitable and just. He stated that
people are hung up on the word "responsive" which means that someone
is in sympathy and accord with your position. He stated that it was
more important to be responsible which means that one has to be re-
sponsible for one's own decisions. He further stated that when making
a decision the Council must consider the implications of that decision
and the long -range needs of the community.
19. That the Council presently has a staff and office space in the City
Manager, the staff, and the Civic Center.
20. That if the Council felt it needed additional staff, it could get
it by a vote of a majority of the Council and that if he felt that if
it would make him more available, he would do it now.
21. That now people don't realize that they can call the Mayor or
Council.
22. That one former Iowa City Mayor had office hours but disbanded
them after a month because no one came down during that time.
23. With a Council - elected Mayor, it is important that a majority of
the Council support the Mayor and that the Council should decide how long
the Mayor serves.
24. The Council should be elected for four -year terms. .
i SW
V+�1n
jt'+2F.
v't4i> z�.free -tY_�
...
L M�t� "Pa /,,gyp.
-
•u.YuA�n hS� '419'Jy l..'$`.
Y.tl Y}i�� ". s4 i+vf Y t'iNA,
a6N .Y.B _
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 7, 1973 Page 2
11. That when he is developing a policy, he investigates the budget
implications of that policy to see if it is feasible before he brings
it to the Council floor.
12. That Boards and Commissions play an important role in policy form-
ation and that most policy suggestions the Council receive are referred
to a Board or Commission.
13. That he is concerned with the relationship between the Council
and Boards and Commissions and the Charter Committee should address
itself to getting better communication between the Council and Boards
and Commissions. He further stated that he is concerned with the lack
of direction of Boards and Commissions and the unclarity of their role.
He cited as an example that the Boards and Commissions minutes may not
be very detailed and thus at Council meetings he must ask staff what
happened at their meetings.
14. That he doesn't feel Council Committees would help in policy
formation because each Council member must make a decision and thus
he must have the information directly.
15. That Boards and Commissions' recommendations play an important
role and that in order to overrule one he must substantiate his reasons
for being against it.
16. That increased Council size won't decrease each Council member's
work load, but that he is not against going to seven members.
17. That wards scare the daylights out of him because in the age of
professionalism he believes the purest form of government is the
Council- Manager -at -Large form. He cited several examples of what has
happened in other cities with wards, i.e.: (a) The Council swapped
zoning, (b) The Council swapped dutch elm tree removal. He further
stated that trading services to please individual Council members is
not the way to have efficient government run in the best interests of
the City.
18. That he doesn't believe that the Council is not responsible and
that they have set policy that is equitable and just. He stated that
people are hung up on the word "responsive" which means that someone
is in sympathy and accord with your position. He stated that it was
more important to be responsible which means that one has to be re-
sponsible for one's own decisions. He further stated that when making
a decision the Council must consider the implications of that decision
and the long -range needs of the community.
19. That the Council presently has a staff and office space in the City
Manager, the staff, and the Civic Center.
20. That if the Council felt it needed additional staff, it could get
it by a vote of a majority of the Council and that if he felt that if
it would make him more available, he would do it now.
21. That now people don't realize that they can call the Mayor or
Council.
22. That one former Iowa City Mayor had office hours but disbanded
them after a month because no one came down during that time.
23. With a Council - elected Mayor, it is important that a majority of
the Council support the Mayor and that the Council should decide how long
the Mayor serves.
24. The Council should be elected for four -year terms. .
M�=
IE
0
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 7, 1973
Page 3
?5. If Une Mayor is elected at -large by the voters, the term should
be for two years.
26. That the longer a Council member serves, the more faith he gets
in the staff. A lot of Council members, when first starting, don't
understand how the system works, so it will take them a little longer
to get a grasp on what to do.
27. That there is considerable information available to Council
candidates during the campaign and how informed they become depends
on their own initiative.
28. That abstention is no problem with the Council.
29. That the problem of Council members declining to vote due to a
conflict of interest does not happen often enough to be a problem.
30. That the City Manager has a slot to fill and that he can't expand
his role to ease the position of Council except in the area of Public
Relations. The planned Director of Community Relations will be a big
asset because this person will handle complaints from start to finish,
recommending policy changes if necessary and in addition, will publicize
the positive things about City Government. He further stated that
because the Director of Community Relations would stress the positive
as well as handling the complaints, the position would be better than
having an ombudsman.
31. That the cost of running for Council is controlled by State law,
although sometimes excessive amounts are spent. The amount that will
be spent in Council elections is dictated by how much is spent on your
opponent's campaign and by how much you want to win. This would be
regardless of whether there were elections by wards or at- large.
32. That he spent $150 out of his own pocket in his 1967 campaign and
nothing out of his own pocket in 1971. .
33. That campaigns could cost anywhere from $200 to $5000, but that
the individual running does not pay for this.
34. That it would not be useful for the City to pay part of the election
cost because if a candidate is credible, he or she will get financial
backers.
35. That in the first few elections, the Council- Manager Association
of Iowa City tried to get at least two individuals to run from each
ward, but they quit doing this because people voted for the best
candidate no matter where they lived. (Mr. Rosenstein was directed to
get copies of Mayor Brandt's study of Council elections.)
36. That a Council position should not be so well paying that you
buy someone's services. The most important thing is to get . someone
devoted to the City itself.
37. That rather than wards, if people ran by positions, bullet voting
could be eliminated.
38. That forms of government are not going to change peoples' attitudes
on lack of trust and faith in governmental officials.
39. That the Council can't make everyone happy and that it must be
concerned with the majority of the people.
40. That electing a majority of Council at each election may be
detrimental to continuity in municipal government.
Discussion next centered on the format of the public meeting and was
deferred until the meeting of March 8, 1973.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P.M.
41
KI
0
MINUTES
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
March 8, 1973
U
MI•:MBIiRS PRESENT: Meardon, Knight, Baldus, Welt, Corrigan,
Cain, Davidsen, Ringgenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: DeCounter
Staff Present: Rosenstein
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M.
Minutes of February 22, 1973, were approved as amended, moved
by Mr. Baldus and seconded by Mr. Corrigan. Motion passed six
to zero, with Ms. Davidsen abstaining.
No public attending wanted to address the Committee.
Discussion was held on the Public
as to where it would be held. Mr
rooms in various public buildings
moved, seconded by Ms. Cain, that
Council Chambers in front of the
unanimously.
Meeting of March 21, 1973,
Rosenstein reported on what
were available. Mr. Baldus
the meeting be held in the
Council seats. Motion carried
Discussion was then held on the ad of the Public Meeting. Mr.
Baldus suggested that a summary statement of some ten lines,
twelve inches high in one issue of each of the two local news-
papers, inviting people to come, air their views, and discuss
them. It was agreed that the approval of the City Manager would
be obtained. It was decided to run the ad March 19 in the Iowa
City Press Citizen and March 20 in the Daily Iowan. A news
article may possibly be obtained for the benefit of students
coming back from Spring Break. The Committee agreed that it was
not necessary to send out mailings but that radio time would
be more beneficial. Ms. Davidsen stated that she would look into
the possibility of radio time. Suggestions were made to have
mimeographed sheets to hand out and to give each Committee member
an issue to discuss. After more discussion, suggestion was
made to refer the meeting format to the discretion of the Chairman.
Discussion was held on whether to have the regular meeting at
4:00 P.M. the 14th of March because of the number of members
being absent. Decision was made to have the regular meeting
and try to have Councilman Czarnecki attend.
Discussion was then held on the Charter. Mr. Meardon stated
that caution should be used in getting too much detail, thus
making the Charter too long.
IOWA CITY CHARTER' COMMITTEE 11,1gc i
March B, 1973
Mr. Meardon suggested that the City Manager be invited to
.' Committee meeting to discuss Article III, Duties of the
City Manager, of the Model Charter.. Suggestion was also
made for a subcommittee to enumerate issues that should be
in the skeleton Charter. Mr. Baldus moved that Mr. Meardon
be impowered to delegate certain members to draft certain
sections of the Charter, seconded by Ms. Davidsen. Motion
passed unanimously. Mr. Meardon will have the list prepared
by Monday, March 12.
Discussion was then held on the number of people it would
take to file a petition for initiative or referendum. Mr.
Baldus moved that the percentage needed on an initiative
or referendum petition be the percentage of the gubernatorial
vote in Iowa, or slightly above three thousand people, and
petitioners must be registered voters. Mr. Corrigan seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Baldus then moved that any petition filed after filing
date in the fall and February 1 will be placed on the ballot
on a special election on the first Tuesday in April. Mr. Corrigan
seconded, and after some discussion, motion was withdrawn.
Discussion was then held on the cost of referendum. Mr. Baldus
moved that any petitions by initiative and referendum appear on
the.ballot of the next general election or any other time prescribed
by the City Council. Mr. Corrigan seconded the motion and it
carried unanimously.
Subject was brought up whether initiative and referendum powers
would prevent a legal challenge by virtue of not having exhausted
administrative remedies. Mr. Meardon suggested that initiative
and referendum be studied and discussed further.
Discussion was next held on campaign expenditures. Mr. Corrigan
moved in favor of putting a limitation of campaign expenditures
in the Charter. Motion was seconded by Mr. Welt. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chairman asked that Mr. Baldus draft a loophole -free section
in the Charter regarding limitation of campaign expenditures.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
Mai h 1.1, 1973
1P:MBI:ItS PRESENT: Meardon, Welt, Davidsen, Knight, Cain
MEMBERS ABSENT: lsaldus, Corrigan, DeCounter, Ringgenberg
Stiff Present:, Rosenstein
Guests Present: Edgar Czarnecki, member of City Council;
James Keele, 502 Grandview Court
The meeting was called to order at 4;10 P.M.
Councilman Czarnecki stated the following responses to the
questions asked by the Committee:
I. It would be ideal to put people of like backgrounds
in wards.
2. If wards aren't planned out as far as location, they
won't solve any problems..
3. He favors a larger City Council than the Committee
is discussing. lie favors at least nine on the Council. He
would favor five as the minimum number of wards.
4. The Council sits apart from the boards and commissions,
therefore they don't always know how the Council feels on issues.
5. There could be broader areas for Committees.
6. He feels that the staff give their best judgment on
issues but alternatives are not always offered.
7. He generally favors initiative and referendum, but
feels that reasonableness is important.
6. He doesn't feel that it's necessarily bad for a mayor
to conflict with staff.
9. He favors a two -year term for the mayor.
10. He foresees no real danger of abuse in a recall provisior
but recall shouldn't be used because of disagreement on one
issue.
11. He doesn't feel an ombudsman is necessary for Iowa City.
12. He feels a manager could be more limited if the mayor's
powers were increased.
13. He spends fifteen to twenty hours per week on Council
duties.
14, lie feels that $75 a month is not enough for Council
wages.
15. lie feels there should be a more open policy of nominating
persons for boards and commissions, possibly names forwarded to the
Cit;; Clerk and Council vote for these at an open meeting, and in
case of a deadlock, the. mayor could appoint.
16. He receives calls from people of many economic levels
but not broad levels of occupations.
17. lie doesn't feel that the Council meets enough informall%,
A
.. . !`ii ey ixk i t�•.4�+h. } <�x1:.W sf tH t ,. t e, NSF -a. ,}y4.; P'C, ,'T$'":. y7',.T,s '. "P
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 14, 1973
Page 2
.1111 there are many issues that Crn,nr.i1 doesn't have time to
:L.•,il w.Ch.
18. A Council olected at -large but nominated by wards
ha:+ some merit but he doesn't know how it would work as a
com1)romise.
Decision was made not to hold a meeting on Thursday,
March 15.
Decision was made to hold a meeting Tuesday, March 20,
at 4:30 P.M. to discuss the agenda of the Public Meeting of
Wednesday, March 21.
Discussion was held on the submitted ads by Mr. Rosen -
stein. Mr. Meardon stated the concern about setting forth the
Position of the Committee in writing at this time since the
Committee has taken only straw votes in the issues.
Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M.
10WA CITY CIIARTER commiT'CEE
MARCH 20, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEARDON, BALDUS, WELT, CAIN, KNIGHT, RINGGENBERG,
DECOUNTER
MEMBE11:; ABSENT: CORRIGAN, DAVIDSEN
Staff Present: Rosenstein
This meeting was held at the offices of Meardon, Sueppel, Downer,
and Hayes, and was open to the public. The meeting was called to
order at 4:30 P.M.
The point was brought up that the Committee had not officially
voted on a form of government. Mr. Baldus moved that the Charter
Committee recommend the Council- Manager form of government. The
motion was seconded by Mrs. Cain and passed unanimously.
Discussion was held on an agenda (attached) prepared by Mr. Rosen-
stein for the Committee's approval. Mr. Rosenstein stated that he
lied based this on two considerations: (1) Since the Charter Committee
had at its meeting of March 14, 1973, decided not to stress the
straw votes, he did not mention them in the handout. (2) That he
tried to make the handout serve an educational purpose. Mr. Meardon
explained to members of the Committee who had been absent at the
meeting of March 14, 1973, that since some Committee members' opinions
have changed, the Committee had agreed not to stress prior decisions.
Mr. Baldus suggested that a list of the decisions be prepared stating
that the Charter Committee by majority vote has tentatively.agreed
upon the following elements of a City Charter for Iowa City. The
Committee agreed that this should be prepared and handed out at.the
public meeting. Mr. Rosenstein was directed to prepare such a list.
Mr. Meardon stated that he had come to the conclusion that the charter
itself was a limitation to city government. lie further stated that
some limitations may not be bad, but that he thought the Committee
should write as short a charter as possible. Mr. Baldus suggested
that the Committee take out "hot" issues like initiative and refer-
endum and have these placed separately on the ballot. Mr. Baldus
was asked to investigate the legality of doing this.
Mr. Meardon next reported on securing legal counsel for the Charter
committee. He stated that he had not been able Lo get someone to
spend extensive time on the project but that several people stated
that they would informally review the charter. Mr. Baldus stated
that ho would be in contact with Mr. Robert Martineau, a former
Law Professor at the University of Iowa, who had played a large
It rulu in drafting the City Code of Iowa. The Committee authorized
Mr. Haldus to talk to Mr. Martineau about legal counsel.
Mr. Rosenstein presented the Committee with a draft of the list
(if Committee decisions. The Committee approved this list. (Attached)
M .... t.inq was adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
{�51vt5.?= jSf;Sa
0
t_I.J
PUBLIC MEETING
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
MARCH 21, 1973, 8:00 P. M., CIVIC CENTER
AGENDA
I. Introductory Comments
William Meardon, Chairman
II. Open Discussion
The Charter Committee encourages anyone who has anything
to say about a city charter to please do so. This period
will last as long as there is anyone who wishes to address
the Committee.
III. Conclusion
Future activities of the Charter Committee
MEMBERSHIP
William Meardon, Chairman
Patricia Cain, Vice Chairman
David Baldus
Robert Corrigan
Penny Davidsen
Brad DeCounter
James Knight
Clayton Ringgenberg
Dale Welt
Telephone Number
337 -9908
351 -8927
338 -4633
338 -4740
338 -1795
338 -4662
351 -3103
337 -4610
Brief Summary of What a City Charter Could Contain
Preamble
This section specifies the intent of the Charter.
Article I, Powers of the City
This article provides that a City should have the broad homy
rule powers granted it by Constitutional Home Rule and by the
City Code' of Iowa.
Article II, The City Council
This article contains provisions for the size of the City
Council, the length of term of the Council, and the method
of electing the City Council. Furthermore, this article
specifies the powers and duties of the City Council, and of
the Mayor, if he or she is a member of the City Council.
This article can also include a provision on the compensation
of the Council.
Article III, The Administrative Head
This article specifies the powers and duties of the Admini-
strative Head of City Government.
Article IV, Administrative Departments
This article could give the't,asic tramework of the
departmental structure specifying who has the power
to change departmental structure.
Article V, Election Procedures
While most of the election procedures are detailed in
state law, it seems possible to add additional regulations
to these procedures.
Article VI, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall
Included in this article can be provisions for these pro-
cedures and the mechanisms that these will follow.
Article VII, Boards and Commissions
*ncluded in this article can be provisions for the appoint-
ment of and the operation of Boards and Commissions.
Article VIII, Additional Provisions
In this article there could be any provision that the City
wishes to include that is not inconsistent with state law.
CHARTER AMENDMENTS
While this will not be a part of the Charter Committee's
recommended Charter, amendments can be added to the Charter
at any time once the Charter is adopted.
SOME ISSUES BEING CONSIDERED
BY THE CHARTER COMMITTEE
Article II, The City Council
A. Council Size. With a home rule charter, cities in
Iowa can specify the size of their Council as long
as there is an odd number of members, but at least
five. Presently, the Charter Committee has been
centering its debate around either a seven or nine
member Council. Several issues involved in this
question are representation, responsiveness, use of
the committee structure, and the ability of the
Council to work together in promptly solving problems.
B. Length of Term. The City Code of Iowa restricts cities
to having either two -year or four -year staggered terms.
The Charter Committee is considering each of these,
and the possibility of combining the two so that there
would be a majority of the Council up for re- election
every two years. Several of the issues involved are the
cost of running for the Council, responsiveness, pro-
10 viding continuity, and increasing the diversity of Council
candidates.
PAGE 3
PUBLIC MEETING
March 21, 1973
C. The Method of Selecting the City Council. Presently
the Charter Committee i., considering numerous alterna-
tive methods of electing the City Council. These are:
1. Election at- large. Each candidate would run
for the Council and the candidates receiving the
most votes would be elected, up to the number of
seats on the Council to be filled. This is the
method presently being used in Iowa City.
2. The place system, which
runn4.ng for a specific seat
being elected by the voters
3. The ward system, in whi
are elected from designated
of the City.
has Council candidates
on the Council and
of the City at- large.
:h Council members
geographical areas
B. The Mayor could be the Administrative Head of the City.
Under this procedure, it is also possible for the Mayor
to appoint a professional administrator to assist in
the administration of the City.
ra�mm
4. Nomination by district and election at- large,
in which Council members are nominated from desig-
nated geographical areas of the City and elected
by the voters of the City at- large.
5. A combination of any of the above .procedures.
D.
Council Compensation. While state law provides that
the City Council shall set its own salary, it may be
possible to add additional procedures to this. At
this time, the Charter Committee is considering what
effects increasing Council compensation from its $75
a month level would have on the number and diversity
of candidates for Council, and upon relieving some of
the burden placed on individuals who serve on the
Council. In addition, the Charter Committee is con-
sidering the possibility of setting a procedure where
a citizen's advisory commission would periodically
review and make recommendations concerning Council
compensation.
Article
III, The Administrative Head.
This
article designates who selects and directs the City
administration
the
and what the powers and duties of the head of
administration
as
should, be. There are three alternatives
to who could be the Administrative Head
of the Citv.
A.
There could be a City Manager, appointed by the City
Council, who would direct and supervise the City de-
partments.
B. The Mayor could be the Administrative Head of the City.
Under this procedure, it is also possible for the Mayor
to appoint a professional administrator to assist in
the administration of the City.
ra�mm
PAGE
PUBL'X MEETING
March „l, iv?;
C. The City Council could be the Administrative Head of
the City. These could hA done in three ways;
1. The Council as a whole could administer every
department.
2. The Council could divide into committees and each
committee would administer a department.
3. Each individual Council member could have a depart-
ment that he or she would administer.
Also included in this article are the powers and duties of
the Chief Administrator of the City. These powers include
the power to appoint personnel, the power to direct this
personnel, and the power to prepare and submit the annual
operating budget and capital program to Council, and to
administer them.
Article IV, Administrative Departments.
This article relates closely to Article III and may be
unnecessary. It can specify who has the power to change
departmental structure. Possible alternatives could be;
1. The Council having this power.
2. The Council and the Administrative Head sharing
this power.
3. The Administrative Head having this power.
Article V, Election Procedures.
The Charter Committee is presently considering the
possibility of placing an enforceable limit on campaign
expenditures.
Article VI, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall
The Charter Committee is presently considering these three
provisions.
A. Initiative is a process in which the citizens of a city
could propose legislation by means of a petition, and
that this legislation, if not approved by the City
Council, would be submitted to the voters for approval
or rejection.
B. Referendum is the process by which the citizens of a
city could by petition require that Council approved
legislation be submitted to the voters for approval
or rejection.
C. Recall is the process by which citizens of a city could
petition for an election which would force the removal
from office of a Council member, or the Mayor.
qW Involved in this issue is whether there should be any of
these provisions in the Charter, and if so how should this
procedure work. This includes what size petition should
be necessary, when these questions should come in front of
ti 5a3 tco.,'�E'yf S 7a , .>TS1 'm�4'� k..v.+ �'[ r a F ei` r F 7 :�.j L-�'``a .'t.
i t t�sxx; ...L?-,•4' �dta n..,. ',x ,..,,._ek.:c� sxn a, r c.,�7� f « �.,'., . - F xi�i ,'4rt . i*ko
f,
PAGE 5
PUBLIC MEETING
March 21, 1973
the voters, and the possible cost of these procedures.
Article VII, Boards and Commissions
The Charter Committee is .considering ways of improving
communication between the City Council and the City's
Boards and Commissions, ways of improving the method
of selecting members for Boards and Commissions, and
other methods of increasing citizen input through Boards
and Commissions.
Article VIII, Additional Provisions
Presently the Charter Committee is considering one addi-
tional provision. This is whether there should be an
ombudsman for Iowa City. The ombudsman, or a similar
Position, would handle citizen grievances against City
Government. As long as the Charter conforms with state
law, this article is open to innovation. If you have
any suggestions as to what should be provided for in
this article, please bring them to the attention of the
Charter Committee.
Charter Amendments
This is perhaps the biggest advantage of having a Home
Rule Charter. Since the Charter can be amended at anytime
it can change as the City changes. With this, the citizens
of Iowa City can gain more control over how they are governed.
1]
\"t tn`Yi;r 4 ., Q,I 4`S:Ti -Ss tt,'J.. s .a'�t;71 F t C�!.F� Y?t+tt�ir�,n- �42k;;^t FSf yn.�, �Z X^'•t'z Yi% #Sj
E]
El
The Charter Committee, by majority vote, has tentativ,-ly
agreed upon the following elements of a Home Rule Charter for
Iowa City:
1. That the Charter should embody the council- manager
form of government.
2. That the City Council should consist of seven members,
one of whom is the Mayor.
3. That the Mayor should be elected by the voters of the
City, at- large, and should serve a four -year term. The
Mayor should be the chief policy leader.
4. That the City Council should be elected at -large by
the voters of the City.
5. That the winning candidate who has received the lowest
vote total of all the winning candidates in the general
election should receive a two -year term. The other
winning candidates, including the candidate for the
mayoral position, should receive a four -year term.
These terms should be staggered in a manner that would
require that four Council members be up for re- election
every two years.
6. That there should be an initiative provision in the
Charter which would allow the voters of Iowa City to
propose legislation by means of a petition and that this
legislation would be submitted to the voters at the
next general election or at an earlier time if so pro-
scribed by the City Council.
7. That there should be a referendum provision in which
the voters of Iowa City can by the means of a petition
require that Council- approved legislation be submitted
to the voters at the next general election or at an
earlier time if so prescribed by the City Council.
8. That there should not be a recall provision.
9. That the City Council should prescribe the method of
appointing the City Attorney.
11
0
MINUTES
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
PUBLIC MEETING,: MARCH 21, 1973 .
0
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, DeCounter, Davidsen, Baldus,
Corrigan, Knight, Welt, Ringgenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: Approximately fifty people were present
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Meardon.
Mr, Meardon stated that this meeting was the last public meeting
before the.Committee began drafting the Charter. He further
stated that anybody wishing to appear at any Charter Committee
work session and to comment on anything should do so. Mr. Meardon
announced that the next Charter Committee meetings would be
Wednesday, March 28, 1973, at 4:00 P.M. and Thursday, March 29,
1973, at 8:00 P,M.
Mr. Meardon next announced the tentative votes taken by the Charter
Committee stating that there was the understanding that anyone
could change their vote prior to the time the Charter was submitted
to the City Council. Mr. Meardon stated that the majority of
the Charter Committee was in favor of the following elements for
a city charter:
1. A seven - member Council
2. Election of the Mayor at -large with the Mayor not having
"strong" Mayor powers but only those incident to that
office.
3. A four -year term for the Mayor,
4. Staggered terms with one two -year term so that every two
years a majority of the Council would be up for re- election.
5. A provision for initiative and referendum,
6. No provision for recall.
7. City Council discretion over who hires the City Attorney.
The meeting was next open to public discussion.
Leslie G. Moeller 623 E. College Street Mr. Moeller made the
following points:
1. That the Charter Committee should attempt to get the best
possible form of government, making changes only for the
betterment of Iowa City and not just for the sake of
change.
2. That the Committee should not allow itself to be pushed
into being completed at a certain date but instead it
should take whatever time necessary to arrive at the
best form.
Tom 6ilers, 37 C Meadow Brook Ct, next spoke stating that he is
a member or the Student Senate, but did not speak for the Student
Senate. lie further stated that he did feel he was speaking for a
IOWA CITY CHARTER MMITTEE
PA<,L 2
PUBLIC MEETING
Donald
Bryan 903 Hi hwood, Professor, University of Iowa.
majority
of the students. Mr. Filers made the following point::
1.
lie took exception with the Charger Committee's suggc: >tc,t
method of electing the City Council. Ile stated that th ero
2.
should be some way of having wards, preferably not the
one listed in the City Code of Iowa. He stated that this
3.
would accomplish the following things:
4.
a. It would bring government closr:r to the people.
b. It would give the studl�-.Ls somf•one they could
pin down.
C. It would give people someone they could express
their views to.
d. It would be more representative.
e. It would reduce the area and the number of people
Council members have to be in contact with.
f.. It would better represent different parts of the
City, which have different problems.
g. It would be more responsive to what the people
of Iowa City want.
2.
lie took exception to there not being a recall provision.
He stated there has to be some provision where when a
person stops being representative, that person could be
removed. Mr. Eilers stated that the City should be run
by the people, not by five or seven people who serve on
the Council or by business or special interests.
3.
In response to a question from Mr. Meardon, Mr. Eilers
stated that there were advantages and disadvantages of
having recall, but that it is better to have a recall
provision so that there is a way to remove a Council
member.
Donald
Bryan 903 Hi hwood, Professor, University of Iowa.
Mr. Bryant
made the ollowing points:
1.
He has lived here since 1958 and the government seems
satisfactory.
2.
lie likes the Charter Committee's proposal and he likes
the present form of government.
3.
He likes increasing the size of the Council.
4.
He was puzzled as to why the Mayor should be elected
at- large. He stated that with this the City Manager
might tend to be a colleague of the Mayor, rather
than the agent of the entire City Council. Mr. Bryant
asked the Committee for clarification. Mr. Corrigan
stated that this grows out of the Charter Committee's
interaction with the community and that this change
is one of form more than of function. Ile stated that
an elected Mayor would be a focal point for people
to-go to and could be a person who identified issues
and ran with a slate of issues. This Mayor would have
no additional powers. Mr. Ringgenberg added that under
AUk
the normal strong Mayor government, the Mayor has power
to appoint, and to submit the budget to the City Council.
lie stated that under the form suggested by the Charter
Committee, the Mayor would not have any appointment
powers, other than boards and commissions, and that the
Mayor would not submit the budget. Instead the City
Manager would have these powers. Mr. Ringgenberg further
stated that since the Mayor would have a four -year term
and would be elected as Mayor, that.person would be in
a much stronger position for policy leadership and that
this position would be more accessible.
Dee Norton, 920 Ginter Avenue. Mr. Norton stated that he was also
nervous about the provision for election of the Mayor at- : -arge
because it would subtract from the attention paid to other Council
candidates.
Elliott Full, 1820 Rochester Court. Mr. Full stated that he was
a long time member of the City Manager's Association and is a
member of the Political Action League. fie stated that he is
pleased with the Charter Committee's proposal but that he is
concerned with having an elected Mayor because if the person
elected is a strong person and the City Manager doesn't agree,
then the City Manager would have to go. Mr. Full further
stated that he was happy the Committee didn't suggest wards.
Cheryl Anderson, 1025 E. Washington. Ms. Anderson representing
the New American Movement rea a statement to the Charter
Committee. (Attached) In response to questions, Ms. Anderson
stated she personally believed there should be recall, and that
she would furnish the Committee with the study showing that
cities the size of Iowa City were abandoning the Council -
Manager plan.
Skip Laitner, 422 Brown St. Mr. Laitner made the following
points:
1. He has been an opponent of Home Rule and therefore
the form of government is not the only subject that should
be studied.
2. That the Charter Committee is only considering alterna-
tives that have been used in the past, and that the
Committee should be more creative.
3. That there is a need to force people to participate
and have a sense of initiative.
4. That students are not apathetic but instead they are
frustrated and don't know how to deal with the problems.
5. By providing a form for people to work in, people will
come out and participate.
6. That there is a myth of the vote in which people believe
that voting for elected offices will tat; care of every-
thing.
7. That the Charter Committee should recommend to the Council
that a committee be formed to study the City Code of Iowa
and to make suggestions to Council on changes that should
be made. The City Council should then vote on these changes
and conduct a lobbying effort to get these changes made.
8. That the City Code of Iowa is a thrust toward professional-
ism and that it is removing some methods of administrative
appeal.
9. That there should be set up administrative methods of
appealing City Council decisions so that people would not
I I ,�5
LOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
rA6e, 4
PURLLC MEETING
have to take the City to court when it disagrees witl.
the decisions made.
10. That there should be four council committee of 'wo
members each, set up on certain areas, and these
corunittees would direct the staff and would be appointed
by the Mayor.
11. Since the Mayor has a veto, he or she should not vote
on every issue but only in cases of a tie.
12. That the Mayor should be elected every two years.
13. That the Council should have staggered terms.
14. That he is torn on whether there should be recall.
At this time, Mr. Corrigan asked the people in attendance how
strongly they felt that they Charter had to be on the ballot
this fall, lie stated that it was impossible to do a deep
study by May and if the public could wait, the Charter Committee
could come up with a much better Charter.
R2 Welsh, 2526 Ma field Road. Rev. Welsh stated that the
Charter Commrttee s response i ity was to come up with the best
Charter for Iowa City.
Mr. Eilers stated that since the Charter would be in effect at
leas— t six years, it should be the best.
Mr. Norton stated that there is no way of telling when you have
the best. Mr. Norton stated that the Charter Committee should
,let at those issues that demand change and leave room for
amendments. Ile stated that boards and commissions are a very
crucial issue and that these should be independent from the
staff so that the Council would get an independent voice.
Ms. Anderson stated that there should be a temporary commission
set-up t at takes care of the urgent needs while the Charter
Committee works on the technical details.
Dr. McDonald (no address iven). Dr. McDonald stated that this
was the best time to ma e t e decisions and present the Charter.
lie also asked if the Mayor, being the chief policy leader, would
represent him or herself or carry policies to the Council. lie
stated if it was the first, he was opposed to it.
Rebecca Ryan, 110 Wales, stated that the City could not tolerate
the present form for two more years. She further stated that
things can be studied to death.
Mr. Corrigan replied that if
9 P people believed that 'ctetting the
rascals out" was the Charter Committee's only function, then
ho had wasted a lot of time. lie stated that the Charter CommLtte„
was not likely to recommend a form much different than tho
present form, and he asked with that in mind, do people still want
the Charter Committee to go fast.
w,
4 ,q�.F `Ta (a ,�y.` Y �q A'T �,�,,.a a1Y a 3` a. u t "s i t h •Yi S 1'` t"tiy`fsv
x�.i�e`
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
PAGE S
PUBLIC MEETING
.i1!hn Boyle, 306 Haywood Drive, stated that he had lived in Now
Itrcholle which had a Council- Manager government, with partisan
elrctit>ns and an elected Mayor and he did not wish what he saw
there for Iowa City. lie stated that the Mayor's powers were
weak but since he was a spokesman for the party, he upstaged
the City Manager and the Manager's position became a non- entity.
aim Ryan, 440 Wales. Mr. Ryan stated that lie was coordinator
of cnu Protective Association for Tenants, but that he did not
represent that organization. lie further stated that he had
lived in Kansas City, Missouri, for thirty years and that he
disliked the Council - Manager form there. Mr. Ryan read the
attached letter to the Charter Committee.
In response to questions, Mr. Ryan stated that the object of
dividing the City into eight wards was not to give the students
a special seat and that the City should be divided into eight
equal districts, regardless of how that population is distributed.
Janet Shipton, 820 Riverside Drive. Ms. Shipton made the following
points:
1. That the place system was an alternative which would
allow at -large elections and would remove negative
voting. She stated that the place system would cure
many of the ills people now feel about the present
system.
2. That wards would not be any more representative because
the City is not ghettoized.
3. By having at -large elections, groups can combine to
get people elected.
4. The only advantages of wards would be smaller consti-
tuencies and.less cost to get elected.
S. That there could be a plan where there are both wards
and at -large elections. She cited Des Moines's system,
stating that it is working well.
6. That recall would undermine the electoral process and
produce the wrong type of Council member. She stated
that there are two types of Council members, one who changes
view points at the people's whims, and one who is a
representative saying what he or she is for and then
getting elected on that basis. She further stated she
did not see how a Council member could judge public
opinion during the non - election year.
Rev. Welsh next spoke, this time representing Citizens for a Hector
Iowa City, especially the steering Committee of that group. Rev.
Welsh made the following points:
1. That he disliked the decision to have the Mayor elected
at -large because it was important to have a harmonious
relationship between the Mayor and City Council.
2. That presently the Mayor was elected by Council for a
Lwu -year term and thus if you have a strong person as
Mayor, this person can provide policy leadership.
3. That is is not necessary to have a Mayor to identify the
<t � Yt %R' Rri(.tAA°1 i'� Y,iFmt: R+s6ak JS'�.$d F'�j 3E+�s y ...•
I
jV
5
41 IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
PAAI: 6
PUBLIC MEETING
issues because a strong Council can do that.
4. That CBIC favors the Council - Manager form.
5. That CBIC had favored enlarging the Council to seven.
6. That CBIC favors at -large election of the Council, with
the next best alternative being elected at -large by
the place system.
7. That the Mayor should be elected by the Council because
if elected by the voters, this could erode the Council -
Manager form.
Ann Erickson, (No address), asked how the Charter could be amended.
Mr. Itinggenberg stated there were three procedures in amending the
Charter: (1) The City Council could amend subject to a petition
for a referendum on the subject. (2) The City Council could sub-
mit amendments to the voters. (3) The people can initiate amend-
ments.
Ms. Erickson stated that there are advantages for both wards and
at -large elections and she doesn't see how the present precincts
could be used unless there were five wards.
Mr. Meardon stated that the Charter Committee is also considering
nomination by district and election at- large.
Mr. Norton asked the Committee what its objections were to the
paid: system of electing the City Council. Mr. Corrigan replied
that the Committee is concerned by what the possible effects of
the place system could be and is giving this subject further
study, lie stated that only 10% of the Council - Manager cities use
this method and most of these are in the South. Mr. Corrigan
further stated that studies showed the original reason behind this
might have been to keep blacks off the Council. He cited other
studies which show that there have been informal agreements made
where certain places are "reserved" for certain groups. lie
stated that this system could easily be abused.
Jeo Zajicek, Route 5. Mr. Zajicek stated that he was responsible
for launching the previous drive to change from the Council -
Manager form to the ward - alterman form. lie stated that although
he was inexperienced and made a lot of mistakes, this drive did
havo a lot of support. lie further stated that since the Charter
Committee proposals have come out paralleling the present form
of government, he has gotten quite a few calls objecting to the
Council- Manager form of government. lie stated that this is the
key issue.
Mr. Zajicek stated that he objected to what the Charter Committee,
had come up with and that if it was going to be so close to what
•Xist.s, then it is a waste of time. He stated that the Charter
itA :.• :should take its time and by the time it reaches its
dc•cisicn ;, it will see that the people don't want the Council- A1an.1.1e1*
Inrm.
r;F
''• IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
n" r
PAGE 7
PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Zaiicek further stated that the terms "efficient government"
and thu "beast form" are worn out phrases. Instead the form of
government should be what the most people want.
Mr. 7,ajicek further stated that he favored recall because so
many other built -in protections had been removed. He concluded
that there would be stiff opposition in the special election if
the Charter committee presented a Council- Manager form.
Rev. Welsh stated that many people are frustrated with the
operalions of city government but this may not be related to the
form of government. He stated that the citizens have not fulfilled
their responsibility as citizens and that the use of boards and
commissions are a key to responsible government.
Mr. Full stated that he hoped that 'Iowa City would continue with
e TIciient government because he would hate to see what taxes
would be like with an. inefficient government.
Jack Esbin 3117 Al ine Ct. Mr. Esbin made the following points:
That t ere are a lot of widely varying opinions and
that there is a compromise that could be made by creating
a new form that tries to balance the view points expressed
and which could still function. lie cited the Action for
a Better Community proposal.
2. That recall could be useful as a threat rather than an
action, but since it is usually in response to a single
issue, this could better be handled by the referendum.
3. That the Charter provision for initiative and referendum
should allow the Council to adopt the petitions proposal
without having to go to the election.
4. That it is hard to get 109 of the voters to sign a petition
on an issue.
5. That there is some agitation for wards so the Committee
should follow one of the two following alternatives:
a. Submit a form that has combination of wards and at-
large election.
b. Submit two different proposals to the voters, one
having ward elections, and one having election at-
large, lie stated that there needs to be a way for
the voters to express themselves.
Dorothy Dou�laasss, 1030 E. Burlington. Ms. Douglass stated that.
the Nuincill ruing into committees was a viable alternative and
a way to get boards and commissions input to the Council.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
11
4
D
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
March 28, 1973
MlitdBF:Rt;
PRESENT: Cain, Rinyyenberg, !!nijit, DeCounter, Corrigan,
Welt, Baldus, Davidsen, Meardon
MEMBERS ABSENT None
Staff Present Rosenstein
Guests Present Gary Jones, 507 Bowery; Kay Lynn Doderer, 2008
Dunlap Ct.; Richard Hurstein, 1110 N. Dubuque;
Ray Wells, City Manager; Bill Sueppel, 100 S.
Linn.
Patt Cain called the meeting to order.
The minutes of March 6 were unanimously approved as submitted,
moved by Welt, seconded by Davidsen.
The minutes of March 7 were unanimously approved as amended, moved
by Davidsen, seconded by Corrigan.
The minutes of March 8 were unanimously approved as submitted, moved
by Corrigan, seconded by Davidsen.
The minutes of March 14 were unanimously approved as amended, moved
by Corrigan, seconded by Welt.
The minutes of March 20 were unanimously approved as submitted, moved
by Welt, seconded by DeCounter.
The minutes of March 21 were deferred until the Committee has a
chance to study them.
There were no comments from the public attending the meeting.
Penny Davidsen then gave a report on campaign expenditures in
the last election. She stated that the cost per candidate was
in the neighborhood of $3,000 and this was for at least four of
the candidates. This did not include the primary, where she
stated very little was spent. She thought that the size of donations
ran between $5 to $25 but this was just a conjecture.
Mr. Baldus reported that Mr. Martineau agreed to act as counsel to
the Committee. Ile stated that after the Committee drafts the Charter,
Mr. Martineau will revise the language in accordance with State Law,
evaluate, etc. A law student is being sought to help with the draft-
ing of the Charter.
In response to questions from the Committee, Ray Wells, City Manager,
stated the following:
I
1. Duties of the City Manager would till into two facets:
(a) What is required by State Law or City Ordinance.
(b) Informal
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes
Page 2
2. Authority is meaningless without responsibility. lie sees
the City Manager in the role of cooruinator with, the knowledge
of how to get access to expertise.
3. A strong mayor to,him is one who has appointive and budgetary
powers.
4. lie has no strong opinions either way on an elected mayor,
depending on the powers given.
`). He feels that the Better Communities Act is going to bring
power back to the Community.. The Act is legislation which was
considered by Congress last year and in all probability will be
passed this year. This Act will take most of the programs that
we know today (HUD, scattered programs) and combine them into
one act, sending the money back to the municipality and telling
them to form their own goals, programs and operations. The result
of this should be automatic public participation.
6. He is puzzled as to why the Charter Committee asked the question
of Council using staff if provided because the staff at the Civic
Center is there to work as the Council's staff for any type of
research or input Council desires.
7, lie doesn't see any policy that Council doesn't initiate and
that from a staff standpoint, they only do what the Council tells
them to do.
B. As far as work load for the City Attorney is concerned, he
feels three attorneys could be used. Ile stated that it's very
seldom that Council decisions are made without legal input. lie
also stated that the City has a broad range of activities for
one attorney to address himself to.
In closing, Mr. wells stated that if there was anything further
that he could do to aid the Committee, he welcomed the opportunity.
A Charter Committee meeting was announced for Thursday, March 29.
A meeting was planned for Tuesday, April 3, at 8:00 P.M. Tuesday
evening meetings were agreed upon in lieu of the Thursday evening
sessions because of Committee members' expected absenses on
Thursdays.
The meeting was then adjourned.
r
r --
,jyq {q.
Y�
E
lowa City Charter
March 29, 1973
MR:MBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Staff Present
MvJ
MINUTES
Committee
Cain, Davidsen, DuO�s:nter, Welt, Knight,
Baldus, Ringgenberg
Corrigan, Meardon
Rosenstein
Guests Present: Richard Burger, 1500 Washington; Keith Kafer,
5 Norwood Circle; Charles Gay, 1421 S. Linn;
Linda Dole; Bill Ambrisco; Tom Eilers, 37 C
Meadowbrook Ct.; David Graybill, 1906 Broadway.
Vice Chairperson Patt Cain called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Richard Burger, President of the Chamber of Commerce, read a letter
addressed to the Charter Committee giving suggestions as to the form
of government for Iowa City. (Letter attached) Vie then stated that
the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce is composed of
twenty members and represent a membership of 650 to 700. lie also
stated the following:
1. Re is an ex -mayor of Iowa City and feels that the present form
of government is the best form.
2. lie feels that there is no reason for a full -time Mayor.
3. The Board sees no advantage in a policy making leader such as
Mayor because the Council as a whole is the policy making body.
4. lie has no objections to initiative and referendum.
5. The Chamber doesn't actually support wards and sees no advantages
in them.
6. lie feels that fifty percent of the Council election is a popularity
contest.
7. lie feels that an at -large Mayor might tend to try to take over
some of the administrative duties.
8. lie reminded the Committee that they were formed to recommend the
best form of government for Iowa City, not necessarily a change of
.government just for the sake of change.
9. Compensation for Mayor and Council was set up for compensating
for pocket money, and the Mayor should be paid more than the Council
members, lie stated that compensation started in 1964 with reasoning
for reimbursement.
10. lie stated that he spent on his campaign in 1963 $400 -$500 and it
would be at least $3,000 now, lie doesn't feel that much should have
to be spent.
I wa City Charter Committee I
M1putes
Palo
I 11. He doesn't favor the idea of the City paying part of Council
CX11paiyns, lie feels that the person who can't afford to run can't
afford Lo serve. He doesn't think that a well - qualified person
would have any problem getting the backing co run,.
12. He feels that having seven on the Council just makes it
necessary to find at least two more qualified candidates to run.
13, lie feels that the Council is responsive to the people and
that a two -year term is too short, and that it takes two years
to learn,
Tom Eilers; 37C Meadowbrook Ct.
Mr. Eilers submitted a proposal to the Charter Committee. He
stated that there is no name for it, he doesn't know if it's
been used before, and doesn't know if it's legal.
This proposal combines a ward base, at -large elections and the
place system. Candidates are nominated from their wards and
run in a ward primary, then the top two primary vote - getters
run in a final at -large election. The result is award system
with Council elected at- large.
This system uses place seats, voting for one of two or three
people for one place. This proposal cuts campaign costs a
little. He feels that this brings the government closer to the
people.
Patt Cain called this proposal nomination by districts, election
at- large, that it is used in other states, and that the Committee
has briefly discussed it.
Ms. Davidsen stated that this type may not be beneficial to the
student, but Mr. Eilers stated that lie felt that the proper student
could win a seat on the Council.
Mr. Eilers stated that this was not his idea alone, but that he
had talked with Brad DeCounter.
The visitors were thanked for their comments and proposals.
Minutes of the public meeting of March 21 were unanimously accepted,
moved by Mr, Welt, seconded by Mr. DeCounter.
Mr. Rosenstein asked the Committee's feelings on what they wanted
n the working draft of the Charter. It ,:as suggested that the
main text of what the Committee had agreed on should be the basic
part of the working draft. It was then suggested that the draft
be prepared by Mr. Rosenstein before so the members could study
those articles upon which the Committee has agreed.
Mr. Ualdus referred to the form of the Oakland Charter and alternative
propositions, The Committee is considering using such a method to
- ',:a.:. Ada✓'.: 1/`✓' S4 -.+�Ti4T9 €+IHEN'�i€5Y3PAXLTEa..
'C&�'e
-
w'i a::. },%3
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes
Pakle 3
present alternatives to the voters.
Discussion then followed on the article on limitation of campaign
expenditures prepared by Mr. Baldus. The remedy in event of a
violation would be denial of office. The intent of this section
would be of money an individual spends and the money spent in his
or her behalf by committees and friends. Comments were made con-
cerning clarification of this article.
Discussion then followed on an ombudsman or Community Service Officer,
who would make recommendations but not countermand decisions. Dis-
cussion on this concerned who would appoint such a person and whether
such a provision should be in a charter. Further discussion was de-
ferred until the Tuesday meeting.
Discussion was held on nomination by wards and election at- large.
Mr. Rosenstein called the Committee's attention to the fact that
there are two different procedures, one being nomination by districts
and election at- large, and the other being nomination by districts,
a primary election by districts, and final election at- large. Dis-
cussion followed on both of these procedures.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
2
E
11
Iowa City Charter
April 4, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Staff Present:
U
MINUTES
Committee
Meardon, Cain, Ringgenberg, Corrigan, Davidsen,
Knight, DeCounter, Welt
Baldus
Rosenstein
1.
Guests Present: None
Mr. Meardon called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. in the
Library Auditorium.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the minutes of March 28, 1973, be
approved as written. Mr. Welt seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
The Committee discussed whether it had ever voted on retaining
the present form of government unchanged. Mr. Corrigan moved that
the Charter Committee recommend retention of the existing form,
unchanged. Mr. Ringgenberg seconded and the motion was unanimously
defeated.
Discussion was held on the Working Draft of the Charter submitted
by Mr. Rosenstein. Several technical changes were made.
At this time, Mr. Corrigan moved that the Mayor should be selected
by the City Council from its membership: Mr. DeCounter seconded
this motion.. Mr. Corrigan stated that he had earlier envisioned
an elected Mayor as being in the emotional sense a leader, but
at the public meeting he did not see the people who supported
wards favoring this type of elected Mayor and he did see strong
opposition to an elected Mayor. Mr. Welt stated that an elected
Mayor could jeopardize the efficiency of city government by
conflicting with the City Manager. Mr. Meardon stated that the
powers the individual had were what was important, and that the
Committee had not explained these powers properly to the public.
He further stated that the assumption that the government which
has the least amount of controversy is the best, is not necessarily
true. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that as long as the Mayor's powers
were limited, an elected Mayor would be innovative, although
risky. Mrs. Davidsen stated that she was not sure that there
would be enough benefits from electing the Mayor to run the risk
involved. She stated the people who want an elected Mayor want
a strong Mayor and this would not satisfy them. Mrs. Cain stated
that one reason the Charter Committee had wanted an elected Mayor
was to focus the campaign on issues and according to the research
on the subject, this may well have the opposite effect. Mr.
Knight stated that he saw too much risk in electing the Mayor.
The question was called and the motion that the Mayor should be
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes, April 4, 1973
Page 2
elected by the City Council, and from its membership, passed
six to two with Ringgenberg and Meardon dissenting.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the Charter Committee reaffirm that
the Council be nominated and elected at- large. Mr. Welt
seconded this motion and discussion followed. Mrs. Davidsen
said she would like the Committee to consider nomination and
primary election by districts and election at- large. She
stated that it would have closeness to people by having dis-
tricts and still have at -large elections. Mr. Corrigan
stated that Iowa City is not organized in such a way that it
is necessary for the function of government that representation
be by area. Mr. Meardon stated that among the people he had
talked to, who support the Council- Manager form, there was a
feeling that there should be geographical representation. He
stated that it is healthy to have every geographical area
represented, because a person who lives in an area is more
likely to experience the problems of that area. He cited
Councilman Czarnecki's example of a Councilmember driving
to work every day through a traffic jam and thus seeing that
problem daily. Mr. Meardon stated that nomination and primary
election by district and election at -large was a compromise
between ward election, and at -large election. Mrs. Davidsen
stated that it is a better system than any other system the
Committee has discussed because it rids bullet voting by using
the place system, it lowers the cost of election, it assures
broader representation, and it uses at -large elections. Mr.
Knight stated that this system might make the average citizen
feel better about city government by his having someone in
his district who he could talk to first.
The question was called and the motion that the Committee
should reaffirm the nomination and election of the Council
at -large was defeated with Welt and Corrigan voting for and
Meardon, Knight, Davidsen, Cain, De Counter, and Ringgenberg
voting against.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the Committee should recommend at -large
elections using the place system. The motion was seconded by
De Counter and was defeated with Welt, Ringgenberg, and Corrigan
voting for, and Davidsen, Cain, Meardon, Knight, and De Counter
voting against.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the Committee should recommend nomination
by district and primary election and general election at -large
but not by places. Mr. Knight seconded the motion and it was
defeated with Corrigan and Welt voting for, and Cain, Davidsen,
Meardon, Ringgenberg, Knight, and De Counter voting against.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the Committee recommend nomination and
primary election by districts and election at- large, not using
the place system. Mr. Knight seconded the motion and it was
defeated with Welt, De Counter, and Corrigan voting for, and
Cain, Knight, Davidsen, Meardon, and Ringgenberg voting against.
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes, April 4, 1973
Page 3
Mr. Corrigan moved that the Committec, •;o on record as at
this time being in favor of nomination and primary election
by districts and election at -large using the place system.
Mrs. Cain seconded, and the motion was passed with De Counter,
Cain, Davidsen, Anight, and Meardon voting for, and Welt,
Corrigan, and Ringgenberg voting against.
Discussion was held on how many districts there should be
and the voting mechanism. Discussion was deferred until the
Charter Committee meeting of April 10, 1973.
Mr. Rosenstein was directed to prepare maps with different
numbers of districts which evenly divide the City.
Mr. Meardon announced that the next Charter Committee meeting
would be held on April 5, 1973 at 4 :00 in the Civic Center.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
April 5, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, Davidsen, Knight,
Ringgenberg, Welt
MEMBERS ABSENT : De Counter, Baldus
Staff Present Rosenstein
Guests Present Flo Beth Ehninger, 10 Oak Ridge
Judge, 340 Rienow; Max Squires,
ton; Richard Ellis, 6 -B Holiday
Lewis, 300 Lucon Drive; Larry L
Dubuque, Stephen Williams, 1523
Gary Hayward, 1111 S. Governor;
242 Ferson.
Ave.; Mark
920 E. Burling -
Gardens; Thelma
Wheeler, 129 N.
Spruce St.;
Linda Dole,
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M.
The minutes of Match 29 were approved as amended with Mr. Welt
moving and Mrs. Davidsen seconding and the motion carrying
unanimously.
Ms. Thelma Lewis, 300 Lucon Drive, addressed the Committee.
She stated that she was interested in the Committee's desire
to retain the Council- Manager form, she liked the idea of a
large Council and that she didn't object to the election of
the Mayor at- large. Ms. Lewis stated that she was concerned
about the following areas and that.the Charter Committee should
provide safeguards for these areas:
1. Who divides the City into wards, how is this done, and
how often it is done.
2. How can you keep ward representatives from being con-
cerned with their own problems while the interests of the
rest of the City is sacrificed.
3. If there is a strong Mayor system, how to prevent the
Mayor from being a competitor of the Manager rather than
a leader of the Council.
4. How to get the whole City active in the selection of the
City Council.
Mr. Meardon told Ms. Lewis that the earlier proposal of an elected
Mayor was not a strong Mayor and that at the Committee meeting of
April 4, 1973, the Committee had reversed its stand. He stated
her points were well taken, and that these areas would be discussed
later.
Mrs. Flo Beth Ehnin er, 10 Oak Ridge Drive, stated that she was
oppose to yiving one Council member a two -year term because it
is not long enough and would encourage someone to run only on one
issue. She further stated she was even.more opposed to giving
the lowest vote getter a two -year term, since the candidate had run
for a four -year term.
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes
April 5, 1973
The Committee next discussed how many districts there should
be in the nomination and primary elections by district and
election at- large. It was decided that since Mr. De Counter
and Mr. Baldus were absent, the Committee would not take a vote
on these issues.
Mr. Corrigan stated that he favored all seven elected at- large,
but that if there were districts, he would want three because
the lower the number of districts, the greater the value of an
individual citizen's vote, and conversely, the more districts
you have, the more you limit the individual ability to vote
for Council seats. Ms. Davidsen stated that it would be easier
to get enough candidates from three districts, so she would
favor three districts. Mr. Knight stated that it would depend
on how the maps came out, but he would favor four rather than
three districts. Mr, welt stated that he favors everything
at -large but would rather have three than four districts. Mr.
Ringgenberg stated that he did not feel strongly about this
and that three districts would be the compromise proposal. He
stated he favored four districts and three completely at- large.
Ms. Davidsen stated that she likes the idea of having two Council
members from each district so that every two years each district
could nominate and have a primary election for a seat. She stated
that she sees some balance in having three or four members nomi-
nated and elected at- large, and that she hasn't came to a con-
clusion. Mrs. Cain stated that she likes the idea of nominating
and having a primary election for each district every two years,
but she did not know how to elect the seventh member if there is
to be a two -year term. She stated she felt having three Council
members elected at -large and four from districts would be more
acceptable. Mr. Meardon stated that he felt that if you had four
districts and three Council members nominated and elected at -large
you would get a more overall view of the City.
Discussion was next held on the powers and duties of the Mayor.
Discussion centered around Section 60 of the City Code of Iowa
and what effects it would have on the powers of the Mayor. It
was felt that paragraph one of that section which provided that
the Mayor would have any supervisory powers not delegated to a
City Manager by law, would not affect the ability of a Charter
to prescribe those duties to the Manager as long as they were
written into the Charter, since the Charter is law and since the
Charter can prescribe the powers and duties of the Mayor.
Discussion was next held on whether to include prohibitions in the
Charter which were already in state law. Mr. Meardon felt that since
the Charter would be referred to by the citizens there should be
some reference to these prohibitions. Mr. Ringgenberg felt that
it would be confusing to put all the prohibitions in, that it would
make no legal difference and since these might be changed by the
legislature, there could be a problem of the Charter following
behind existing state law. No decision was made on this subject.
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes
April 5, 1973
Mr. MPardon announced that the Char^ -
Committee would be
meeting at 8:00 P.M. Tuesday,, April 10, 1973, at the l 11b11973,
Library Auditorium and at 4:00 P.M. Wednesday, April
at the Conference Room in the Civic Center. It was also
announced that the sub - committee on the powers and duties of
the Mayor and Council would meet at 1:00 P.M. Monday, April 9,
1973, at the Civic Center.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P.M.
E
El
u
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
April )t, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Welt, De Counter, Knight,
Ringgenberg, Baldus, Davidsen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Corrigan
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: None
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M.
Mr. Meardon distributed a draft of a letter to Jay Honohan,
City Attorney, requesting his opinion on the legality of
offering alternative propositions on the ballot along with the
Charter. The Committee decided to defer requesting Mr. Honohan's
opinion of the legality of presenting alternatives until further
legal research could he done on this matter.
Mr. Meardon further stated that he has informed Mr. Honohan of
the Committee's desire to retain Mr. Robert Martineau for legal
review of the Charter and that Mr. Honohan stated that he would
present this to Council and would have a report back to Mr.
Meardon shortly.
Mr. Welt moved that the minutes of the Charter Committee meeting
of April 4, 1973, be approved as read. Mrs. Cain seconded and
the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Knight moved that the minutes of the Charter Committee meeting
of April 5, 1973, be approved as corrected. Mr. Welt seconded the
motion and it was passed unanimously.
Mr. Meardon announced that the next Committee meetings would be
held on April 12, 1973, at 4:00 P.M. and on April 18, 1973, at
4:00 P.M.
Discussion was held on the number of districts there should be
and how many Councilmembers should be nominated and elected at- large.
Discussion was held on who would draw the districts and how they
would be drawn. It was agreed that the City Council had the
legal power to draw the districts and that boundaries should not
be specified in the Charter. Several members mentioned the
possibility of recommending the district boundaries to Council in
the commentary. Mr. Welt moved that there be three districts. Mr.
Baldus seconded the motion and it passed five to three with Baldus,
Welt, Ringgenberg, Davidsen, and De Counter voting for and Knight,
Meardon, and Cain voting against.
Iowa City Charter Committee
Kaye 2
Minutes, April 11, 1973
Mr. ualdus moved that there should be one representative for
rach of the three districts and four Councilmembers elected
at- larn_e. Mrs. Davidson seconded the motion and it passed six
to two with Ringgenberg, Davidsen, Cain, Welt, Meardon, and
Baldus voting for and De Counter, and Knight voting against.
Mrs. Cain moved that the place system not be used for the
four at -large seats (but it would be used for the three district
seats, giving each district one representative). Mr. De Counter
seconded the motion and it passed seven for and one against
with Welt, Meardon, Cain, Baldus, Davidsen, De Counter, and Knight
voting for and Ringgenberg voting against.
Mr. Welt had to leave at this time.
Mrs. Davidsen moved that there should be four -year terms with
no two -year term and that the terms be staggered so that at
one election two at -large and one district representative would
be elected and at the next election two at -large and two district
representatives would be elected. Mr. Baldus seconded the motion
and it passed six to one with Meardon, Baldus, Cain, Davidsen,
Ringgenberg, and Knight voting for and De Counter voting against.
Mr. Rosenstein brought to the Committee's attention two possible
points of conflict between the City Code of Iowa and the proposed
system of nominating and electing the District Councilmembers.
1. Concerning the number required to sign a nomination
petition, the City Code of Iowa, in Section 64, provides that a
petition must contain signatures equal in number to at least
two percent of those who voted to fill that office in the last
election. Mr. Rosenstein questioned whether this meant that to
get nominated from a district a person would have to get two
percent of those who voted to fill that position in the general
election, and thus mean that the individual would have to get as
many signatures as a person trying to become candidate for a seat
nominated at- large.
2. Concerning the primary election, Section 66 of the City
Code of Iowa provides that the Council may decide not to have a
primary election. Mr. Rosenstein questioned whether this could
be used to remove primary election by districts by not having primary
elections. Mr. Baldus stated that the drafters of the City Code
of Iowa evidently did not have this type of election in mind when
it drew these provisions. Mr. Meardon stated that the basic
question was whether these sections are applicable to a Home Rule
Charter since it was a special form of government. Mr. Ringgenberg
stated that the intent of the writers was to draft the City Code
of Iowa so that it could apply to all communities. Mr. Ringgenberg
stated that it was worth a try,to write these into a Charter because
if that's what the Charter Committee wants and what the citizens
want, then it should be in the Charter. Mr. Ringgenberg further
stated that he did not feel that the Charter C'ommittee's proposals
were inconsistent with the intent of the Home Rule Legislation.
Iowa City Charter Committee
Page 3
Minutes, April 11, 1973
Mr. Baldus moved that the Charter prescribe that there should
be no residency requirement to be nominated for a district seat.
Mr. De Counter seconded the motion. Mr. Baldus stated that from
the standpoint of the student, there could be adults who Pave in
other parts of the City who they would want as their representative
and the tradition for residency requirements in other districts
would label non - residents as carpetbaggers and would result in a
protection against non - residents for areas that want residents.
Without this some people would either have to move to that area
or not run for that seat. Mr. Baldus continued that geography
was not the controlling factor but the allowing of more leverage
to the people of an area over their representative. He further
stated that a residency requirement would be denying the voters
the flexibility of making this decision when they vote, and
allowing this would not hurt anyone. Mrs. Cain stated that her
reason for supporting districts was geographical and not just
the providing of one representative for one group. She stated
that this .form would give geographical representation with at-
large elections and it would have one person designated from an
area. Mr. Meardon stated that there are issues that are strictly
area problems and there should be someone who lives in that
area to present these problems. He stated that there would be
a built -in man for an area who would be their voice on the Council.
Mrs. Davidsen stated that there is a question of geographical
vs. constituency representation and that you can overplay the
students' importance because there are other constituencies in
the community.
The question was called and the motion to have the Charter pre-
scribe that there should be no residency requirement to be
nominated to a district seat was defeated two for and five against
with Baldus and De Counter voting for and Ringgenberg, Meardon,
Cain, Knight, and Davidsen voting against.
Mrs. Cain moved that the Charter include the requirement that
there must be a primary election for district seats if there
are more than two candidates filed for that seat. Mr. De Counter
seconded the motion. Mr. Ringgenberg moved to amend the motion
to strike the words "for district seats"from the motion Mrs.
Davidsen seconded the motion to amend. Mr. Baldus stated that
the conflict between the Charter and the City Code of Iowa should
be minimized. He stated that there is an ambiguity in the City
Code of Iowa and it could be argued that the people who drafted
the City Code of Iowa did not have in mind this method of select-
ing the Council. Therefore requiring a primary election for the
districts is consistent with the City Code of Iowa, but the
expansion of the motion clearly conflicts with the State Law and
Puts the Charter in a more vulnerable position. The question
on the amendment to the motion was called and it was defeated
zero for and six against with Mr. Ringgenberg abstaining. The
question on the motion that the Charter include the requirement
that there must be a primary election for the district seat if
Iowa City Charter Committee
11,up, 4
MLIlUteS, April 11, 1973
there are more than two candidates filed tor that seat was
Called and it passed unanimously.
Discussion was next held on whether there should be a change
made in the required number of signatures for a nomination
putition to become a candidate for a district seat. Mr. Baldus
moved that the petition should contain at least two hundred
signatures from that district but withdrew the motion. The
subject was deferred and Mr. Rosenstein was directed to
research this subject.
Mr. Rosenstein was directed to prepare a draft of what was
passed at this meeting.
Mrs. Cain brought up whether the Mayor should be selected from
the entire Council or only from the four Councilmen who held
at-large seats.
Mr. Baldus stated that he would like to see two alternatives
placed on the ballot: (1) Election of the Mayor by the voters
at-large, and (2) A seven-member Council elected at-large.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 P.M.
KI
11
MINUTES
IA
Iowa City Charter Committee
April 12, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, De Counter, Welt, Baldus,
Ringgenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Corrigan, Davidsen, Knight
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: None
The meeting was held at the Planning Conference Room in the
basement of the Civic Center.
Informal discussion was held before the meeting was called to
order because of lack of a quorum. Maps prepared by Mr. Rosen-
stein which utilized three districts were studied. One map
utilized the central core concept as proposed by Councilman
Czarnecki and the other was drawn based on population, main City
streets and the River, the legislative districts, and the idea
of cutting the City in thirds like a pie. The general feeling
among the Committee members present was that the second map
would be a better arrangement. Discussion was also held on
whether the Committee should recommend to the City Council
where the district boundaries should be.
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:45 P.M.
Mr. Meardon presented a letter from Mr. Adrian Schoenmaker
addressed to the Charter Committee. Mr. Meardon stated that
since this letter dealt with a subject that is not a Charter
decision, he would answer the letter and forward it to the
City Council.
Mr. Baldus moved that the Charter should provide that a nomination
petition for a district nominated seat should contain signatures
from the candidate's district in a number equal to one -third of the
number of signatures required by law for at -large Council candidates.
Mrs. Cain seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. This
motion was designed to bring the number of signatures required for
nomination by district in line with the number required for nomination
at- large.
Discussion was held on whether the Committee should vote on whether
it wanted to provide alternatives before it requested a legal opinion
on the matter. Mr. Rosenstein stated that it might be wise for the
Committee to dacide if it wants' to endorse the concept of providing
alternatives before it invested any money in finding out if it
was legal. Mr. Meardon stated that the Committee should know if
the alternative was available before it decided whether it wanted
to use the alternative. Mr. Baldus stated that in his opinion since
there was no provision prohibiting providing alternatives and since
home rule allowed a city to do something unless prohibited by law,
that providing alternatives was legally possible. The Committee
agreed to investigate the legality of the matter.
Iowa City Charter Committee
Pago 2
Minutes, April 12, 1973
Discussion was held on the proposed limitation on campaign
expenditures. Mr. Baldus stated that this proposal would
allow a candidate to spend up to $2,500 in the primary and
too to $2,500 in the general election. The equal amount for
the primary would allow candidates who were not well -known
to try to become known, and it would prohibit any candidate
from extensive spending. Mr. Baldus stated that this proposal
would allow anyone to bring a challenge in district court, make
a candidate responsible for how much is spent in his behalf with
his consent would be enforceable by removal from office, would
make it a misdemeanor for someone to spend money in a candidate's
behalf without the candidate's permission, and would require a
candidate to publically file the amount of money spent on his
campaign. Discussion was also held on the possibility of pro-
viding that the Council must set a limit on campaign expenditures.
Some members felt that this and political pressure would be enough
and others felt that the limit should be in the Charter itself.
Discussion was next held on the proposal on a Community Service
Officer (ombudsman). Discussion centered on whether this proposal
should be in a Charter and if so, whether it was necessary to pre-
scribe that the person receive adequate staff, salary, and facilities.
Both the proposal on the limitation of campaign expenditures
and the Community Service Officer were deferred until a meeting
with more Committee members present.
It was announced that the sub - committee on the City Manager
would meet at 2:00 P.M. Sunday at Mr. Meardon' Law Office.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 :45 P.M.
0
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
Ali;! 18, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Baldus, Davidsen, De Counter,
Knight, Corrigan, Ringgenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Welt
:toff. Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: Don Frank, 705 20th Avenue, Apt. 3, Coralville;
Elizabeth Ann Shope, 905 N. Gilbert St.
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:10 P.M.
Mr. Baldus moved that the minutes of April 12, 1973, be
approved as corrected. Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that the minutes of April 11, 1973, be
approved as written. Mrs. Davidsen seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
Discussion was held on a letter received from Mrs. Jan Madsen.
(Copy attached)
Mr. Baldus moved that the Charter Committee should include
Draft A2 of the section on Community Service officer in the
Charter.. (Attached) Mr. Corrigan seconded the motion and
offered several amendments dealing with the wording of the
section. Mr. Baldus amended the proposal to state that the
Community Service Officer shall be responsible to.the City
Council. The amendments were accepted. Mrs..Cain stated
that ombudsmen were generally used in larger cities than
Iowa City. Further, she cited a synopsis of a book by Mr.
Walter Gellhorn, distributed earlier by Mr. Rosenstein.
She stated that Mr. Gellhorn, who is a leading proponent of
the ombudsman concept, divided complaints into three categories,
with the most numerous one in municipal government being when
an administrative action has harmed identified individuals.
Gellhorn states that the responsibility for investigating this
type complaints should be with the supervisory ranks of the
administration and that having an outside critic (ombudsman)
investigating these could have detrimental effects on the
administration. Mrs. Cain further stated that she is not
convinced of the need of this position in Iowa City, and
that there could be harm done by putting this position in the
Charter. She stated that by forcing the Council to establish
this position, the Charter Committee would not be helping this
concept in any way, and that it would be better to have the
Council do this on their own. She concluded that this proposal
wouI I b t k'
1 ( e a Inq this idea and making It into something destructive
rather than constructive.
;iJSt'.-gd .S,c i�=r,• .A:- 3. T. , 4 v > t ,..1!; „, ;.. ..:.� .r 1r�... 3 ,?�� ' t� >.'c ty . �A ;....di:s.
Iowa City Charter Comm it.tee
April 18, 1973
Page 2
Mr. Kingyeuberg stated that Citizc nf� For A Better Iowa City
has ht,,-r, interested in this concept for a long time and have
talked with City officials about the idea. lie further stated
that C131C's Steering Committee had met Tuesday, April 17, 1973,
and voted unanimously that they felt this type position should
not be in the Charter. In addition, Mr. Ringgenberg stated
that it would be better to have the Council try this on an
experimental basis and that CBIC had not yet decided whether
this position should be under the Council or the City Manager.
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that there are 175 members in CBIC
and about 15 voted on this issue at the Steering Committee
meeting. The question was called on the Community Service
Officer proposal as amended. The motion was defeated two for
and six against with Meardon and Baldus voting for, and
Davidsen, Knight, Cain, De Counter, Corrigan, and Ringgenberg
voting against.
Mrs. Cain moved that the Charter Committee include a recommend-
ation for the establishment of a Community Service Officer in
its report to Council. Mr. Corrigan seconded the motion. Mr.
Meardon suggested that before this motion was voted on, the
next step would be to vote on whether to include in the Charter
a provision stating the Council may appoint a Community Service
Officer. There was no motion made on this. The question was
called on the motion to include in the report a recommendation
that there should be a Community Service Officer and the motion
was passed five to three with Corrigan, Cain, Davidsen, De Counter,
and Ringgenberg voting for and Baldus, Meardon, and Knight
voting against.
Mr. Baldus stated that the sub - committee on Council Compensation
recommends that the Charter contain the same provision for .
compensation as the City Code of Iowa. Mr. Baldus stated there
was no useful purpose in increasing Council compensation unless
there is a considerable increase, which would not be done. Mr.
Knight moved that the provision adopted from the City Code of
Iowa be in the Charter. Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion
carried unanimously. Mrs. Cain moved that a recommendation be
included in the Committee's report that the City Council
marginally increase their compensation. She stated that this,
could make a difference in encouraging students and women to
run. She withdrew the motion until further research could be
done on how much the compensation should be increased.
Discussion next turned to the report by the sub - committee on
the City Council which was included in the Working Draft of
Lhe Charter presented by Mr. Rosenstein,
Mr.. Baldus moved that Section 2.06 (a) be amended to state
J "Ile shall be the presiding officer of the Council. tie shall
,ilso be its policy spokesman and in that capacity each year
no later than February 28, he shall present to the City a
:,tate of the City Message." Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the
motion carried seven for and one against with Mr. Corrigan
voting against.
Iowa City Charter Committer
April 18, 1971
Payu 3
Mr. Baldus stated that he thought the Mayor should have a
role in budget preparation.
Mr. Corrigan offered a rewritten version of the duties of
the Mayor which reads: "The Mayor shall be a voting member
of the Council, Ceremonial Head of the City, presiding
orticer of the Council, its policy spokesman, and shall
prosent to the City no later than February 28 an annual
State of the City Message. The Mayor may sign, veto, or
take no action on an ordinance, amendment, or resolution
passed by Council in the manner provided by State Law."
Mr. Corrigan moved that this language be adopted and Mr.
De Counter seconded. The motion carried with Ringgenberg,
Corrigan, Knight, Meardon, De Counter, voting for and
Baldus, Cain, and Davidsen voting against.
Mrs. Cain brought up the question of whether the Charter
Committee wanted to allow Councilmembers nominated by district
to be elected Mayor. She moved that the wording for the
first paragraph of Section 2.06 read, "The Council shall
elect from among its members officers of the City who shall
have the titles of Mayor and Mayor Pro -tem, each of whom shall
serve at the pleasure of the Council." Mr. De Counter seconded
and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ringgenberg moved that the following wording on the Mayor
Pro -tem be adopted: "The Mayor Pro -tem shall act as Mayor
during the absence or disability of the Mayor." Mrs. Davidsen
seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that the second paragraph of Section 2,07,
General Powers and Duties be stricken. Mr. Ringgenberg seconded
the motion. Mr. Baldus stated that it provided no advantages
for the City, and it could provide a restriction on the City.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Committee decided to have the paragraph of Section 2.07
read as follows: "All powers of the City shall be vested
in the Council excopt as otherwise provided by laid and this
Charter."
Section 2.08, Appointments, (a) Changed to read "The City
Council shall appoint a City ?tanager." (b) Changed to
read "The City Council shall appoint the City Clerk and Deputy
City Clerk."
Mr. Meardon stated that the Charter should require that the
City Council shall appoint its own legal advice. He objected
to allowing the Council to provide for the appointment because
it was possible that the Council could delegate the appointment
power to a City Manager, Mr. Meardon stated that he wanted
the Council to have independent legal advice. Mr. Corrigan
stated that allowing the City Council to make the decision as
Alk
Iowa pity Charter Committee
April 18, 1973
Payr 4
to who appointed the legal counsel would provide the greatest
Ilexibility. Mr. Baldus : ;tated than it was important to
havr the Council appoint its legal counsel so that this
1,(,:;it. ion could be a balance of power. Mr. Ringgenberg stated
that there were two ways of having home rule. One was to
leave something flexible, and the other was to provide for
: ;omethinq in the Charter. Mr. Ringgenberg moved that the
wording be adopted as, "The City Council shall provide for
the method of appointment of the City legal staff." Mrs.
Cain seconded. Mr. Baldus moved that the motion be amended
to read, "The City Council shall appoint the City legal staff."
The motion received no second. Mr. Corrigan moved that the
motion be amended to read as follows: "The City Council shall
appoint its own legal counsel and shall provide for the appoint-
ment of the City legal staff." Mrs. Davidsen seconded and
the motion to amend carried six for and two against with Cain
and Ringgenberg voting against. The Chairman ruled that it
would be unnecessary to vote again.
Section 2.08 (d) dealing with the appointment of Boards and
Commissions was deferred until the report by the sub - committee
on Boards and Commissions. Mr. Baldus stated that the sub-
committee should include in its proposal a provision requiring
diverse representation on Boards and Commissions.
Mrs. Cain moved that Section 2.08 (e) be removed, which provided
that the City Manager make all other appointments. Mr. De Counter
seconded. Mrs. Cain stated that this should be dealt with under
the section on duties of the City Manager. The motion carried
seven to one with Ringgenberg voting against.
Mrs. Davidsen moved the adoption of Section 2.08 (f) which
provides that the City Council shall provide for the method of
compensation of City officials and employees. Mr. Corrigan
seconded and stated that he would like to see a clause covering
non- discrimination and affirmative action in the Charter. Mr.
Knight stated that the Charter should not interfere with the
employee's right to organize. Mrs. Davidsen withdrew her
motion and the section was deferred for further study. Mr.
Rosenstein was directed to put together some language for a
non - discrimination clause.
The next Charter Committee meeting will be held at 7:30 P.M
Tuesday, April 24, at a place to be announced later by Mr.
Rosenstein,
Mr. Meardon reported on his conversation with the City Attorney.
lie stated that the Council had asked for further information on
the hiring of Mr. Robert Martineau as the Committee's legal
counsel. Mr. Meardon stated that members of the Council felt
that $40 an hour was not a proper amount and that the Council
did not want to give the Charter Committee a "blank check."
Mr. Meardon stated that this doesn't mean the Council is denying
the hiring of Mr. Martineau. Ile further stated that he did not
r`-
�f
ll�, � j (p pv ,. v � r --. �4 2 �� 1 / r (Q( a � i ♦ i�T��J' b "�` }��'riF
13
E-
I,lwI Cite Chart or Comuni ttoa
April 16, 1973
want t;: got into d hassle .'bout loy"! tees. Mr. Meardon
c.nc:uted that the Charter Committee should approach the
Council directly in writing_ and defining precisely what
it wants. Mr. Ringgenberg moved that the Charter Committee
request payment of $25 per hour not to exceed $500. Mr.
Corrigan seconded. Mr. Baldus moved that the motion be
.0 ^.rmlcd by striking the hourly rate. Mrs. Cain seconded
the. motion and the motion to amend passed five for and
three against with Knight, Cain, De Counter, Meardon, and
Baldus voting for and Ringgenberg, Davidson, and Corrigan
votiny against. The question on the amended motion was
callod and it passed six for, one against, and one abstaining
with Cain, Baldus, Meardon, Do Counter, and Knight voting for,
Davidson voting against, and Ringgenberg abstaining.
The meeting was ajourned at 6:10 P.M.
El
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
Apccl 24, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, Welt, Ringgenberg,
Knight
MEMBERS ABSENT; Davidsen, Baldus, De Counter
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the minutes of April 18, 1973, be approved
as read. Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion passed four for and one
against with Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, and Welt voting for and
Ringgenberg voting against.
Discussion centered around some wording concerning equal opportunity
employment as submitted by Mr. Rosenstein and requested by Mr.
Corrigan. Mr. Corrigan moved that the Section 2.08 (E) include
the following provision: "All appointments and promotions of City
employees shall be made according to merit and fitness. All
persons shall have equal opportunity to obtain and hold employ-
ment with the City of Iowa City, and to advance therein. The
City of Iowa City shall put forth maximum effort to achieve non-
discriminatory equal employment opportunities for qualified persons.
Mr. Welt seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenstein stated that this
wording in just a rough draft and that the legal implications of
such a clause should be closely studied. Mr. Rosenstein also
stated that it was important to include a phase that would indicate
that employment decisions were to be made on the basis of the
person's qualifications. Discussion followed with Mr. Meardon
suggesting the following wording: All appointments and pro-
motions of City employees shall be made according to job - related
cualifications and be consistent with non - discriminatory and equal
opportunity employment policies. Mr. Corrigan withdrew his
original motion and moved the above wording. Mr. Welt seconded
and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the first sentence of .Section 2.08 (F)
should read, "The City Council shall provide for the compensation
of City officials and employees." Mrs. Cain seconded. Mr.
Rosenstein suggested that the Committee might want to separate
the equal employment opportunity clause from this, but the
Committee felt that they should be combined for the time being.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Cain moved that the Charter Committee adopt Section 2.09,
which reads, "The City Council shall determine its own rules
and maintain records of its proceedings. Mr. Knight seconded
and the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Cain moved that Section 2.10 should read, "The City Council.
low., City Charter Conunittoe
Muuttes -April 24, 1973
op I'ayr 2
shall tall a vacancy occurring in an elective City office as
provided by state law." Mr. Welt seconded. This provision
is a shortened version of state law and the sub- committee on
ih" Mayor dnd City Council fo1L iL should be included in the
Chat LOT` as a means of clarification to the public even though
rl wa.; not legally necessary. The question was called and the
motion passed five for,and one abstaining with Mr,. Corrigan
abstaining.
Mr. Ringgenberg moved that Section 2.11 should read, "Passage
of an ordinance, amendment, or resolution requires an affirmative
vote of a majority of the Council members." The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Cain. This section is also from state law
and is being placed in the Charter to clarify this to the public.
The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion was held on whether to include in the Charter the
requirement that a quorum of the Council is a majority since it
is in state law. Mrs. Cain stated that this would fall under
the provision of the Council setting its own rules and pro-
cedures. Mr. Meardon stated that it was important to be sure
that those rules and procedures provided by state law be in
effect under a Charter. Mrs. Cain moved that Section 2.09 be
amended as follows: "The City Council shall determine its own
rules and maintain records of its proceedings consistent with
state law." Mr. Knight seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Section 2.12 (Prohibitions) was deferred and the sub - committee
on the Mayor and City Council was requested to review these.
Discussion next turned to Section IV, The City Manager, and Mr.
Meardon distributed a draft of this article by the sub- committee
on the City Manager. Mr. Corrigan moved that Section 4.01
read as follows: "The City Council shall appoint and provide
for the compensation of a City Manager who shall be administrative
head of the City Government. In making the appointment of City
Manager, the Council shall consider only the qualifications and
the fitness of the person without.regard to political or other
.affiliation. During tenure, the City Manager shall reside within
the City of Iowa City, Iowa." Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion
passed unanimously.
Discussion next centered around Section 4.02, Oath and Bond. Mr.
Ringgenberg moved that.Section 4.02 not be included in the Charter.
Mr. Corrigan seconded. Mr. Meardon stated that the effort of this
motion would be that the Manager may not have to execute a bond.
Mt'. Corrigan stated that such a small bond as presently executed
Is rothor insignificant and is not a deterrent. Mr. Ringgenberg
stated that this was not essential so in order to keep the Charter
;simple as possible, it should not be in the Charter. The
111(:)tion to omit Section 4.02 carried four to two with Cain and
Meardon voting against the motion.
AIL
lowa City Charter Tommittee
Ml III,t l•F - April 24, 1973
1`a'te 3
tin :;rrtion 4,03, Manager Pro -tem, Mr, welt indicated that he
tavi)Vt'd the Council appointing the Manager Pro -tem. Mr.
Rtng.n•nbcr�l; Mrs. Cain, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Corrigan indicated
thry favored the Manager appointing the Manager Pro -tem. Mr.
Knight, Mr. .Corrigan, and Mr. Meardon indicated that the Manager
should appoint the Manager Pro -tem with the Council having
the right to change this appointment. This subject was deferred
until Wednesday's meeting.
On Section 4.04, Mr. Meardon stated that there was a difference
between resignation and removal and that the Manager should get
the rest of a month's salary if removed by Council. Mr. Corrigan
stated that he favored an appeals process for the Manager to pro-
tect him from arbitrary action. If there was not an appeals
Process, he favored that more money be provided upon removal.
Mr. Meardon stated that if there is going to be a removal, it
should be able to be done quickly and without dividing the City
into pro - manager and anti - manager camps. He further stated
that allowing quick removal was a basic tenant of the Council -
Manager plan. This section was deferred.
Discussion next centered around Section 4,05, Duties of the
City Manager. Mr. Meardon stated that since a Charter is a
separate form of government, it is necessary to specify what
duties the Manager will have. Discussion was held on whether
a detailed description of the City Manager's duties should be
Put in the Charter or whether there should be one broad general
Paragraph. It was felt that there was no way of writing one
paragraph that secured the necessary duties for the Manager
and informed the public of what the Manager does.
Mr. Corrigan stated that Section 4,05,.Paragraph 14 should read,
"To see that the business affairs of the City are transacted
in an efficient manner and that accurate records of all City
business are maintained and made available to the public."
This would remove the reference to modern and scientific methods
because it was anachronistic, The Committee agreed to this
change.
Mr. Rosenstein suggested removing the phrase, "by ordinance," from
the Section 4.05, Paragraph 15, which reads, "To perform such
other and further duties as the Council by ordinance may direct,
at all times having the right to present recommendations and pro-
grams to the Council and to participate in any discussion by the
Council of any matters pertaining to the duties of the Manager."
Mr. Meardon stated this paragraph would give the Manager the
right to participate in discussions, except for something in
which he is not concerned. Mr. Corrigan stated that this provides
that the Manager may have duties other than the ones provided
in the Charter. The Committee agreed to delete the words, "by
I
10wa City Charter
MiMute :; -April 24,
Pa._lc 4
Committee
1973
Mr. Moardon stated that the power to administer oaths would
,'I low the Manager during an investigation of the City administration
to put one of his employees under oath and to administer other
oaths. Mr. Corrigan stated that would he intimidating to the
employee. Mr. Meardon stated that since the Manager was the one
who was directly accountable to the Council, he should be able
to thoroughly investigate the administration. Mr. Corrigan
moved to delete Section 4.04, Paragraph 10, which states, "To
administer oaths." Mr. Ringgenberg seconded and the motion
tied three for.and three against with Corrigan, Ringgenberg,
and Welt voting for and Knight, Meardon, and Cain voting
against. This paragraph was deferred until Wednesday's meeting.
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that Section 4.05 should read, "The duties
of Manager shall include," rather than, "shall be." The Committee
agreed to this change.
Mr. Corrigan asked what "to actively control the police..." would
mean since there is now a Director of Public Safety. Mr. Meardon
stated that this should be reviewed legally. Mr. Rosenstein
stated that What this does is allows the Manager to directly run
the Police Department and to give direct orders when necessary.
On Section 4.06, Mr. Corrigan moved that the words, "attending
the polls," be removed from the sentence, "The Manager shall not
participate in any election held for the purpose of electing
members of the Council except for attending the polls and
voting if the Manager is a qualified elector of the City." Mrs.
Cain seconded. This change would prohibit the Manager from
being a poll watcher. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rosenstein stated that the Charter Committee should make some
decisions on what format it wanted to use in presenting the Charter
to Council.
The meeting was adjourned at 9;10 P.M.
11
..f •t 's, 5 ^ S.A f„ ivy '� ! �f
MINUTt:S
Iowa City Charter Committee
April 25, 1073
MEMBERS PRFISBNT: Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, De Counter, Baldus,
Knight
MRMBIiItS ABSENT: Ringgenberg, Davidsen, Welt
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: Fred A. Russo, Jr., 201 1/2 6th Street, Coralville,
Gordon Jacobs, 606 S. Johnson
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M.
Discussion was held on whether to place Sections 4.01, 4.03, and
•1.04 dealing with the appointment of the City Manager in Articic
11, which deals with the Powers of the City Council. Since there
w,Is no motion made these sections were left in Article 1V.
Discussion was held on Section 4.03, Manager Pro -tem, as to
who should appoint this position. Mr. Meardon stated that the
three options were: 1) The City Manager appoints., 2) The City
Council appoints., 3) The City Manager appoints with the Council
being able to remove that person and appoint someone else. The
general feeling of the Committee was that the Manager should
appoint this person with the Council having the power to approve
or disapprove. The sub- committee on the City Manager was requested
to draft the appropriate language. Mr. Meardon stated that this
section should provide for the Council appointing the Manager Pro -
tom if the Manager is unable to make the appointment.
Discussion next centered around Section 4.04, Accountability and
Removal of the City Manager. Mr. Corrigan stated that he favored
including a procedure which would give the ?tanager a formal appeal
to assure against arbitrary action. Mr. Meardon stated that there
:should be, no restrictions to a quick dismissal of a Manager because
a Manager serves at the pleasure of the Council and if they say go,
Ut.tt's it. The Charter Committee agreed that there should be no
hearing process for removal of the Manager. Discussion next centered
on providing severence pay for a Manager who is dismissed.
Members of the Committee expressed that there should be a severence
pay provided so that the Manager would have some financial security
if he were removed by the Council. Mr. Corrigan moved that the
Charter should provide that a Manager removed by the Council
should receive not less than two months pay. Mr. Baldus seconded
and the motion carried five for and one against with Mr. De Counter
voting against the motion, Mr. Rosenstein asked if it should be
specified in the Charter that removal was by majority vote of the
whole Council in addition to stating that the Manager served at
the pleasure of the Council. Mr. Meardon stated that this would
not he necessary since serving at the pleasure of the Council
Iowa City Charter CSatmlittee
Minutes- April 25, 1973
intk ""'11 ;,nuly•11 by a m.,jol lty ut un. whole council.
Mi. M,'ard(nl next wont through Section 4.05, Duties of tilt
City Manager, stating the changes that had been made at the
April 24, 1973 meeting. Discussion turned to Section 4.05,
1'.ir.l,lraph 10, which gives the Manager the power to administer
u•;ths and which was deferred from the Charter Committee meeting
of April 24, 1973• Mr. Meardon stated that Mr. Corrigan's
tell' Was of self- incrimination of an employee when the Manager
made an investigation but that this type investigation was
separate and distinct from criminal action. Mr. Meardon stated
that anyone who had .the power to compel the attendance of
witnesses should have the power to put someone under oath.
Mr. Meardon stated that if a Manager put a guilty man under oath
and did not give him the Miranda warnings, none of the information
could be used in criminal prosecution. Mr. Baldus stated that
this clause doesn't give the Manager the power to interrogate
an employee under oath. Mr. Baldus moved that Section 4.05,
Paragraph 10, "To administer oaths," be stricken. Mr. Corrigan
seconded and the motion was defeated two for and four against
with Knight and Corrigan voting for and Baldus, Meardon, Cain,
and De Counter voting against.
The Charter Committee decided to delete the first sentence in
Section 4.06, Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts, which reads,
"No member of the Council shall be eligible for appointment
by the Manager to any office of the City or any department
thereof while a member of the City Council." The reason for
removing this prohibition was that it would be covered in
Section 2.12, Prohibitions.
The Charter Committee decided to rewrite the second sentence
of Section 4.06 to read, "The Manager shall not participate
in any election for the purpose of electing members of the
Council except for voting provided that this prohibition shall
in no way limit the Manager's duty to make available public
records as provided by law and this Charter." The reason
this was changed was to assure that the Manager would be able
to provide information to every Council candidate requesting
that information. Mr. Baldus stated that the Manager should also
I)(.- prohibited from participating, other than voting, in initiative
and referendum elections.
Section 2.12, Prohibitions on the City Council, Section 2.12 (A)
and (B) were deferred until d redrafting of them by the sub - committee
on the City Council. Mr. Baldus stated that 2.12 (B) and (C)
we n� designed as anti- patronage clauses and were very important.
Mr, t4eardon stated the basis of the proposal on limiting inter -
for,�nce was to have the Council strive to make all approaches to
Ute staff through the City }tanager. Mrs. Cain stated that
loaving Council the power to make .inquiries and investigations
with the staff could be so broadl i t t d 1
} n erpre e that anything
could be termed as an inquiry or investigation. Mr. Baldus
E
11
c a �'i ,qTk 44hFi! ''� i 1 i f 3 1 yi} f C ry Pf Y ?C pY
"s �A-. �x' i�Y 'Cyi4',GI`r €4.S,��i��I.4S� \v }Sy ASt ,l3Ya!���LVx �.1.+�.l k�3 S. ,.yt�3 ,� \. (4., •N 1311, {i't'J:� {i
0
lowa City Charter Committee
Minute:; -April 25, 1973
Payc I
E
stated that. this problem could be solved by adding the reyuire-
mrnt that inquiries be authorized only by formal motion of the
Council. Mr. Baldus stated that this is a statement of spirit
and there could be informal arrangements made but that the
Manager should be able to say that the Council is violating
this proposal. Mr. Gordon Jacobs, 606'S. Johnson., stated that
the Council should have direct access to information and that the
M;mager should not be able to use the control of information as
a power base, Mr. Meardon suggested the following provision for
Section 2.12, (C), "No Councilmember shall interfere with the
supervision, direction, or control of any City officer or employee
appointed by or under the control of the City Manager except
through the City Manager." Mr. Baldus moved this wording, Mr.
Knight seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned.
i _�
MINUTES
low,, city Charter Committee
May 2, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Knight, De Counter,
Davidsen, Ringgenberg, Welt, Corrigan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Baldus
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:10 P.M.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the minutes of the Apri1.24 meeting
be approved. Mr. Welt seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the minutes of the April 25 meeting
be approved. Mr. Welt seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Meardon presented the Charter Committee with a letter
to him from Mr. Jay Honohan, the City Attorney. (Attached)
Mr. Meardon stated that the City Council has approved the
Charter Committee's request to secure the services of a
legal consultant for an amount not to exceed $500.00 and
to hire a legal assistant to do research for a limited
time on the basis of $3.50 per hour. Mr. Meardon stated
that there can be no hiring, retention, agreement, or
whatever of anyone without the express approval of the
Council.
Mr. Meardon stated the Charter was nearing completion
and that the sub - committee reports should be coming now.
He stated that the Charter should be completed in the
next few weeks. Mr. Rosenstein asked the Committee
how it wanted to present the Charter to the Council,
specifically mentioning the need to prepare a cover and
to decide upon a format. Mr. Rosenstein stated that
if the Charter Committee decided to use the printing
facilities that the City uses for its reports, it would
cost about $25. Mr. Rosenstein also asked for authoriza-
tion to begin writing a draft of an introduction to the
Charter subject to Committee's approval. Mrs. Davidsen
stated that she knew of a professional artist who was
willing to volunteer his time in drawing a cove; for the
Charter. The Committee directed Mr. Rosenstein to prepare
some ideas on the cover and the presentation and to
report back.
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes -May 2, 1973
l'ayo 2
Mr. Meardon suggested that at the next meeting the
Charter Committee finish the powers and duties of
the Council and Manager and submit a copy of those .
sections to the Council and the Manager for comments.
lie stated that this should be done to see if there is
something in the powers and duties section which would
be unworkable. Mr'. Corrigan stated that this would be
a good idea as long as the Charter Committee was not
bound to these opinions. Mr. Corrigan moved that the
Chairman be given authorization to submit copies of
the sections on the powers and duties of the Council
and the Manager to members of the Council and to the
City Manager for their comments. Mrs. Cain seconded
and the motion passed unanimously.
Discussion was next held on whether to hold a Public
Meeting on the final document before it is submitted
to Council. Mrs. Davidsen stated that she did not want
to hold one but instead the responsibility for present-
ing the Charter to the public should rest with the Council
and the Charter Committee jointly. Mr. Corrigan stated
that there should be another Public Meeting because the
Charter Committee has never formally presented the idea of
districts, Boards and Commissions, the Community Service
Officer, or limitations on campaign expenditures to the
public for their reaction. No decision was made on this
subject.
Mr. Meardon stated that the Charter Committee has not
talked about whether, when the Charter is put into effect,
the three hold -over Councilmembers should be allowed to
complete their terms before having to run for re- election.
He stated there is both the legal question of whether it
can be done and the policy question of whether it should
be done. He stated that if this was done, a majority of
the Council would still be elected this year. Mr. Welt
stated that the incumbents should be allowed to finish their
terms. Mrs. Cain stated that there would be a big problem
in working out the mechanics of this process for 1973. Mr.
Corrigan asked whether this would in effect be appointing
three people to the Council. Mr. Meardon stated that the
enactment of the new Charter without this provision would
mean that three elected representatives are gone. Mrs.
Davidsen stated that this happens all the time, i.e., re-
districting. Mr. Corrigan stated that the two sides of
the politics of the issues would be (1) running the risk
of opposition by the incumbents, and (2) running the risk
of opposition by the people who want to use the enactment
of a Charter to get the present Council out. Mr. Corrigan
stated that he thinks the three hold -over Councilmembers
well represent the City and that it would make for a smooth
transition. He stated that he would favor doing it, if it
�t 't^" ° 131 9 T "k 1' ar • j n�.l t,' -. ..+ia v„ •t . S; i...'sa. i ��
® 0
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes -May 2, 1973
Page 3
were legal. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that it might be
possible to do it because there is no detail on the
transition to a Charter and since it's not covered by
state law and if it's in the Charter and approved by
the voters, it would be hard to prove it illegal. Mrs.
Davidsen stated that she felt it would be illegal be-
cause it would be carrying vestiges from one form to
another. She also stated that it would be protecting
people instead of starting clean. Mr. Meardon agreed
that it would be protecting people but that there has
often been a carry -over of present people, i.e., the
J.P.s. No action was taken on this question.
Mrs. Davidsen announced that the sub - committee on Boards
and Commissions would have a report in on May 8. Mr.
Meardon announced that the next Charter Committee meeting
would be at 8:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 8, 1973, in the Council
Chambers. Mr. Meardon announced at that time the Committee
would also discuss the sections on initiative and referendum.
Mr. Meardon stated that up to this week the Charter Committee
has formally met 34 times for an estimated 72 hours and an
estimated 554 person -hours was devoted to these meetings. He
stated that this does not include sub- committee meetings or
personal time devoted,
Discussion was next held on Section 2.12, Prohibitions and
the recommended provisions by the sub - committee on the Mayor
and City Council. Mr. Ringgenberg moved that Section 2.12
(a) read as follows: No Councilmember shall hold any other
City office or be a City or County employee while serving
on the Council nor hold any remunerated City office or employ-
ment for at least one year after leaving the Council." Mr.
Welt seconded the motion. Discussion was held on prohibiting
County employees from serving on the Council and it was felt
that this would prohibit a conflict of interest and would
not exclude very many people from serving on the Council.
The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion next centered on Section 2.12 (b). Mr. Corrigan
stated that the Council should not have the ability to stop
a removal of a City employee by the Manager, nor force an
appointment. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that this provision
shouldn't be in the Charter because, as a practical matter,
there was no way of controlling this. Mr. Corrigan stated
that he was concerned about patronage and that there should
be something in the Charter to tell the Council and the public
that the Council can't interfere. Mr. Welt moved that Section
2.12 read as follows: "Neither the Council nor its members
shall dictate in any manner, the appointment or removal of
any City employee appointed by the City Manager, but the
Iowa City Chdrter Committee
Minutes -May 2, 1973
Page 4
Council may express its views to the City Manager pertaining
to the appointment or removal of such employees." Mrs.
Davidsen seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rosenstein stated that the reference to an officer
appointed by the City Manager was removed by the sub-
committee on the Mayor and City Council because there
is no City officer appointed by the City Manager who is
not also a City employee. Mrs. Davidsen moved.that the
words, "officer or" and, "except through the City Manager,"
be deleted from Section 2.12 (c) so that it would read,
"No Councilmembers shall interfere with the supervision,
direction, or control of any City employee appointed by
or under the control of the City Manager." Mr. Welt
seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Ringgenberg
moved that the word, "person," be substituted for, "City
employee, in Section 2.12 (b) and (c). This wording would
be all inclusive. Mr. De Counter seconded and the motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Welt moved that the words, "Ceremonial Head," be stricken
from Section 2.06, Mayor and instead read, "the official
representative." Thus, the second paragraph of Section 2.06
would read, "The Mayor shall be a voting member of the Council,
the official representative of the City, presiding officer
of the Council, its policy spokesman, and shall present to
the City no later than February 28, an annual State of the
City message. The Mayor may sign, veto, or take no action on
an ordinance, amendment, or resolution passed by the Council
in the manner provided by State law." Mrs. Davidsen seconded
and the motion carried seven for and one against with Mr.
Ringgenberg voting against.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 :25 P.M.
EJ
J
ILIA
Office of City Attorney
April 27, 1973 (319) 337.9605
William L. Meardon
Chairman of Charter Committee
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa
52240
Re: Ward- Precinct Lines
Dear Bill:
I would like to call your attention to an Attorney General's 0pinion
which was issued March 20, 1973, of which I have received a summary
through the City Attorney's Association. It indicates, "The City of
Davenport, .a special charter city, may not eliminate election precincts
altogether nor may it establish precincts for municipal elections dif-
ferent from those established for other elections."
The reason I call this to your attention is that it may be of some
relevance to the work that you are doing in connection with wards, pre-
cincts or districts. Also, it appears to be in conflict with my own opinion
about the establishment of precincts for municipal elections under the pre-
sent law. As soon as I have a copy of the opinion itself, I will review it
and talk to you about it. I did, however, want you to know that it does
exist.
JIIH:sb
Very truly yours,
0 �e.
Jpy H Honohan
City/Attorney
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
mdy 8, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Baldus, Davidsen, Meardon, Corrigan, Cain,
De Counter, Welt, Ringgenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT Knight
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
'Mr. Welt moved that the minutes of May 2, 1973 be approved
as corrected. Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
Discussion next centered on Section 4.02, Accountability and
Removal of the City Manager. The idea behind this section was
in -ase a Manager was terminated without notice, he would receive
some compensation so that he could have financial security be-
tween jobs. Mr. Corrigan moved the adoption of paragraph one,
reading, "The City Manager shall be under the direction and
supervision of the City Council and shall hold office at its
pleasure. Unless otherwise provided by contract, a City
Manager removed by the Council shall receive termination pay.of
not less than two months' salary, computed from the date of
resolution of removal." Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion
carried unanimously. Mr. Corrigan moved that the second para-
graph of Section 4.02 read as follows: "Upon the resignation or
removal of the City Manager, the City Council shall appoint an
individual qualified to perform the duties of City Manager to
serve at the pleasure of Council or until a City Manager is appointed.
Mr. Welt seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the first paragraph of Section 4.03,
Absence, Disability of City Manager, read as follows: "At all
times, there shall be a person to perform the duties of City
Manager. In the case of temporary absence or disability of the
City Manager, a substitute shall be designated as follows :"
Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr.
Welt moved that Section 4.03 (a) read as follows. "When the
absence or disability of the City Manager is known in advance,
the City Manager shall, by letter filed with the City Clerk,
designate a qualified City employee as acting City Manager
during the absence of the City Manager. The City Council may,
at any time, revoke such designation and appoint some other
IF qualified person." Mrs. Davidsen seconded the motion. Mr.
Meardon stated that the Council should be able to appoint anyone
they want as the temporary City Manager. Mrs. Cain stated that
the Council should not be able to appoint a non -City employee
during the temporary absence of the City Manager because someone
May 0, 1973
Iowa City Charter Committee
Page 2
should be appointed who was loyal to City policies. She drew
the distinction between someone replacing a Manager for a short
period and someone appointed after the Manager had resigned or
been removed stating that in the latter, the Council should
not be limited to City employees. The question was called and
the motion passed six for and two against with Mrs. Cain and
Mr. Ringgenberg voting against. Mr. Welt moved that Section
4.03 (b) read, "When the absence or disability of the City
Manager is not foreseen, the City Council shall appoint a
qualified person to serve as Acting City Manager until the
return or removal of the City Manager." Mrs. Davidsen seconded
and the motion passed five for and three against with Cain,
Ringgenberg, and Corrigan voting against.
Mr. Meardon directed Mr. Rosenstein to prepare a draft of the
approved sections on the powers and duties of the City Council
and of the City Manager and give it to Mr. Meardon for distribu-
tion to the City Council and the City Manager.
Discussion next turned to Article XIII, Initiative and Referendum.
Mr. Baldus stated that there were five areas which the Model
City Charter recommended not be covered by initiative and referen-
dum: budget, taxes, salaries, appropriations, and the capital
program. He stated that he has deleted the capital program
and taxes from the proposed draft because capital improvements
are a controversial issue, and allowing these processes to have
effect on taxes would force a Council to prove to the public
that their taxes were well spent. Mr. Corrigan stated that it
would be irresponsible of the Charter Committee to allow a
referendum on the tax rate because the anti -tax elements were
so strong and they could cripple the operation of City Government.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the restriction against initiative and
referendum on the salaries of City officers be deleted. Mr.
Corrigan stated that the City Council's salary should be a possible
initiative or referendum item, although the salaries of City
employees should not be an issue for initiative or referendum.
Mr. Baldus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr.
Corrigan moved that the levy of taxes should be added to the
items restricted from action by initiative or referendum. Mrs.
Cain seconded. The argument for this inclusion was that it
should not be within the power of the voters to suspend taxes.
The question was called and the motion passed six for, one
against, and one abstention with Mr. Baldus voting against and
Mr. Meardon abstaining. Mr. Meardon stated that levying taxes
was a positive issue but that the suspension of taxes might be
a separate issue.
Mr. Ringgenberg asked if the intention was for initiative and
referendum to apply just to ordinances or to resolutions. Mr.
Baldus stated that it should apply to any Council action that
formulated policy. It was agreed to replace the references
to ordinances with references to "Council action."
C
May 8, 1973
Iowa City Charter Committee
0
Page 3
VA Mr, Meardon asked why Section 8.01 wdy untitled, "Limitation
U„ Cour,uii Power." Mr. Baldus explained that Section 56 of
the City Code of Iowa allows Nome Rule Charters to provide
for the powers and duties of the Mayor and Council and there-
fore the initiative and referendum procedures could be inter-
preted as being a limitation on Council power. Mr. Meardon
stated that this limitation should go under Article II, The
City Council. Mr. Ringgenberg moved that the limitation on
the Council's power by initiative and referendum be placed
in Article II. Mr. Baldus seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
Discussion next centered on Section 8.02, Commencement of
Proceedings, Petitioners' Committee; affidavit with Mr. Baldus
saying that this section was necessary in order to make the
procedure very clear. Mr. Baldus cited the Model City Charter
which stated that the Article on initiative and referendum must
be completely self- executing since detail could not be filled
in by the Council. The purpose of these procedures is to guard
against the possible inadequacies of Council. Mr. Corrigan
moved that Section 8.02 be adopted as written with the addition
of the word, "valid," before the word, "signatures," in para-
graph two. Mr. Baldus stated that any reference to voters in
this Article referred to registered voters. Mr. Welt seconded
and the motion passed unanimously.
Discussion next centered on Section 8.03, Petitions and on the
number of signatures needed on an initiative or referendum petition.
The Committee felt that it would be better for the petitioner
if the Charter would specify a certain number of signatures, thus
alleviating some of the confusion of the process. It was felt
that if the population substantially changes, the Charter could
later be amended to reflect that change. Mr. Baldus moved that
the Charter specify that the petitions must be signed by at
least 2,000 voters of the City. Mrs. Davidsen seconded. Mr.
Ringgenberg moved to amend that motion to read at least 2,500.
Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion passed five for and three
against with Baldus, Davidsen, and Meardon voting against.
Mr. Corrigan moved that Section 8.03 (b), Form and Content,
be adopted as read. Mr. Welt seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Corrigan moved that Section 8.03 (c), Affidavit of Circulator,
be adopted as read except for the first sentence reading, "Each
paper of a petition containing signatures..." Mr. De Counter
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Discussion was held on Section 8.03 (d), Time for Filing Referen-
dum Petition. Mr: Baldus stated that this places a sixty -(60)
day limit in which to file a petition for referendum after an
ordinance is passed by Council. Mr. Baldus stated that this might
not be a long enough period. Mr. Corrigan stated that the Model
City Charter used a limit of thirty (30) days to assure that
H
0
May 8, 1973
Iowa City Charter Committee
Page 4
the effective date of an ordinance will ::ot be delayed unless
the referendum effort is of serious proportions. Mr. Baldus
stated that the ordinance is not suspended until the petition
is filed and the part that the petitions are being circulated
does not effect the status of the ordinance. Mrs. Cain asked
if there was a zoning change passed by ordinance and then a
petition was filed, would the zoning change be suspended until
the time of election. Mr. Corrigan stated that if the zoning
change was more restrictive, there could be irreversible harm
done during the suspension. It was agreed to give this subject
further investigation. Discussion was held on whether sixty
(60) days was long enough. Mr. Baldus stated that if the
deadline had passed, the voters could petition for initiative
on an ordinance that repealed the Council passed ordinance
but that this would not have any suspension effects. Section
8.03 (d) was tabled until f+)rther study could be made.
Mr. Baldus explained that Section 8.04, Procedure After Filing,
provided for exactly what was an improper petition, on what
grounds it could not be certified, and then provided for an
appeals process and a chance to increase the number of signa-
tures on an invalid petition to the required number. Mr.
Corrigan moved that Section 8.04 be adopted as read except for
the addition of, "even though the petition nay contain one or
more invalid signatures," the addition of, "valid unless," and
the deletion of, "(3) the voter was not given an opportunity
to read the full text of the ordinance proposed or sought to
be reconsidered before his or her signature was executed." Mrs.
Davidsen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Section 8.05, Referendum Petitions: Suspension of Effect of
Ordinance. Mr. Meardon asked what the effect would be on the
referendum process if the Council amended the ordinance. This
subject was deferred until further research could be done. Mr.
Corrigan asked why, if 2,500 people signed a referendum petition,
the five people on the petitioner's committee could withdraw
the petition. Mrs. Cain stated that this could save the expense
of the election if there was some reason the referendum was no
longer needed. Section 8.05 was tabled.
Section 8.06, Action on Petitions provides that once the petition
is deemed sufficient, the Council has a time period in which to
reconsider their action. Mr. Meardon asked if it were possible
to have just initiative but not referendum and if that reduced the
complication of the process. Mr. Meardon said that you can
accomplish the same things with initiative as you can with refer-
endum. Mr. Baldus stated that the only difference would be the
loss of the suspension that comes with referendum. Mr. Baldus
Aft also stated that an amendment to an ordinance would not affect
the referendum process as the process reads now.
Mr. Meardon adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P.M.
y
'i5,:.:3
E
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
May 9, 1973
H
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, De Counter, Davidsen,
Knight, Baldus, Ringgenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT Welt
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Chairman Meardon called the mc-ting to order at 4:00 P.M.
Discussion centered around the sub - committee on Boards and
Commissions proposed draft of the article on Boards and Commissions.
Mrs. Davidsen stated that if you believe in the objective of
making government more responsive to the people, then the use
of Boards and Commissions is a way of bringing citizen input
into the process.
Discussion was held on whether there should be specific require-
ments placed on the City Council and on the Boards and Commissions
to adopt by -laws, regulations concerning open meetings, formal
and informal communication processes, requirements for Council
to set time limits for recommendations to be sent to Council, and
requirements for dismissal of delinquent or negligent members.
Mrs. Cain stated that doing this was counter to the Philosophy
that the Charter Committee had been operating under since they
had been attempting to keep the Charter fairly general and now
the Charter Committee is getting specific. Mr. Baldus stated
that if members of the Charter Committee believed that there
are problems in these processes and the Council now has the power
to act on these matters but hasn't, then these things should
be in the Charter. Mr. Baldus stated that these provisions,
except for the one dealing with orientation of members, deal
with the effectiveness of the Boards and Commissions and with
their relationship with Councii.
Mrs. Davidsen stated that it was important to clarify the role
of staff in relationship to Boards and Commissions. She stated
that Boards and Commissions need staff reports in order to function
and that presently the staff does not make its reports to the
Board or Commission, but rather staff reports go to Council and
often the recommendations of the staff conflict with those of
the Board or Commission. Mrs. Davidsen further stated that the
staff should be able to go to Council but that they should first
go to the Board or Commission. The Charter decided to place a
responsibility on the City Manager to provide Boards and Commissions
with necessary and reasonable staff assistance.
f
May 9, 1973
Iowa City Charter Committee
Page 2
Mr. Meardon stated that repeating Boards, Commissions, and
Committees was too unwieldy and there should be some shorter
term to refer to them. Mr. Baldus stated that there was need
of a general definitions section. Mr. Rosenstein was directed
to prepare such a section for Committee approval.
Mr. Baldus stated that too often Boards and Commissions have
been closed groups with not broad enough representation. Mr.
Baldus stated that the Charter should require that notices of
openings be given and that there should be some procedure for
assuring an equal distribution of opinion.
Discussion was held on whether there should be a separate
article on Boards and Commissions in the Charter. Mrs. David -
sen said there should be so that the people could see the
Charter's commitment to citizen participation in government
and this would help establish Boards and Commission as a third
branch of City government. Mr. Baldus moved that there be
something on Boards and Commissions in the Charter. Mrs.
Davidsen seconded and the motion passed six to two with De Counter
and Ringgenberg voting against.
4 Mr. Meardon stated that the Charter should require the full
Council to appoint the Boards and Commissions. Mr. Rosenstein
stated that this requirement could La ?.n conflict with State
Law because Division Ix provides that the City Council shall
provide for the method of appointment of the Boards and
Commissions. Mr. Meardon stated that if the Charter is a
separate form of government, then this provision does not apply
to a Houle Rule Charter. Mr. Baldus moved that "The City
Council shall appoint.members of the City's Boards, Commissions,
and Committees," be placed in Section 2.08 (d). Mr. De Counter
seconded and the motion passed seven to one with Mr. Ringgenberg
voting against.
Mrs. Cain moved that Section 5.02, Duties, of the subcommittee
on Boards and Commission draft be deleted. Mr. Davidsen
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
The Charter Committee requested the sub - committee to rework
Section 5.03,. Rules and Procedures.
The Charter Committee decided that Section 5.04, Staff Assistance,
be deleted because it would be covered by the addition of the
requirement for the City Manager to provide necessary and reason-
able clerical, research, and professional assistance to Boards,
Commissions, and Committees in Section 4.05, Duties of Manager.
Mr. Rosenstein presented the Charter Committee with a draft of
a cover drawn by Mr. Stan Haring. Mr. Rosenstein stated that
the printing of this cover might cost more than his earlier
estimate of $25, but it would be less than $50. Mr. Baldus
moved that the draft be used as the cover of the Committee
report to Council. Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion passed
unanimously. The Charter Committee expressed its gratitude
to Mr. Haring for the time he volunteered to draft the cover
and for the excellent job he did.
Chairman Meardon adjourned the meeting at 5:30 P.M.
6L
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
May 15, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Baldus, Welt, Corrigan, Ringgenberg, Knight
MEMBERS ABSENT : Davidsen, Be Counter
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Mr. Rosenstein presented the Charter Committee with a draft of a definitions
section for the Charter. included were definitions of "City Council, Council,
Councilmember, shall, must, may, voter, qualified voter, and board." Changes
were made so that the definition of "voter" would be a person eligible to register
to vote in Iowa City, and the term, "qualified voter," would be used in Article
VIII, Initiation and Referendum. Discussion was held on the definition of Board.
The purpose of this definition was to avoid having to repeat Boards, Commissions,
and Committees throughout the Charter. The following wording was offered by Mr.
Baldus, "Board includes a Board, Commission, Committee, or any similar entity
however dosignated." Mr. Baldus offered an additional definition which reads,
"Ordinance shall include all legislative action taken by Council including ordinances,
resolutions, however designated, including amendments." Mr. Baldus stated that
this definition would be the most legally inclusive of actions that should be
subject to initiative and referendum. Mr. Rosenstein stated that the word ordi-
nance should not be defined as such because there are other legal meanings of
ordinance in State Law and if this was the definition the Charter Committee wanted
to use for initiative and referendum, then it might b^ wise to use a word other
than ordinance. Mr. Baldus moved that the definition section, as amended to in-
clude the definition of boards and of ordinance be adopted. Mrs. Cain seconded
and the motion passed unanimously.
Discussion next centered on a redraft of the Article on Boards, Commissions, and
Committees as submitted by Mrs. Davidsen and Mr. Rosenstein, The Charter Committee
agreed to the wording of Section 5.01, Establishment, which reads, "The City
Council may establish Boards and shall specify the title, duties, length of term,
qualifications of members, and other appropriate matters. The City Council may
reduce or increase a Board's duties or may transfer duties from one Boatel to
another and the Council may dissolve any Board except as otherwise provided by
State or this Charter."
Mr. Baldus moved that Section 5.02, Appointment, read, "The Council shall appoint
all members of Boards and shall actively seek broad representation on all Boards,
including establishing a procedure to give at least thirty days, notice of vacancies
before they are filled and encourage nomination by citizens and groups." Mr.
Welt seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that the first sentence in Section 5.03, Rules and Procedures,
read, "The City Council shall establish uniform rules and procedures for the
operation of Boards, which shall include but are not limited to: the adoption
of by -laws, rules pertaining to open meetings, and conditions for the removal
of members for just cause. Mr. Welt seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Discussion next centered on the second sentence of Section 5.03. Mr. Knight
stated that Mrs. Davidsen had considered it very important that there be estab-
lished procedures for communication between the Council and Boards. Mr: Meardon
Iowa City Charter Committee
;,iay IS, 1973
Page 2
stated that the Council should be the ones who have to establish those pro-
cedures. Mr. Corrigan moved that the second sentence read, "The Council shall
specify for each Board methods for informal and formal communication with Council,
time schedules for the completion of reports requested by Council, and make other
such rules as it deems appropriate." Mr. Baldus seconded and the motion passed
unanimously. The Committee agreed to have the third sentence in Section 5.03 read
as follows: " A Board may establish additional rules and procedures that are con-
sistent with State Law, Council Rules, and this Charter."
Mr. Rosenstein stated that Mrs. Davidson had asked him to bring up the possibility
of putting into the commentary a recommendation to Council either to form a
Committee to study the possibility of placing on the ballot at a latex date a
question of whether to abolish the Library Board as specified in State Law, or to
recommend to Council that this question be placed on the ballot later this fall.
Mr. Rosenstein stated that such a move was consistent with the .philosophy of
centralizing power in the City Council and that it was unwise to have a separate
board formulating public policy. Mr. Welt stated that this issue has been raised
before and there is no reason to have a policymaking library board. Mr. Corrigan
stated that this action would not mean that there was not going to be a library
board, but rather it would be placed on the same status as the other Boards and
Commissions of the City. He stated that the traditional reason for library boards
in the Midwest was the fear that elected Councils would censor the types of books
that libraries could have. Mr. Corrigan stated that he did not feel that this was
a problem in Iowa City due to the high level of education among the people of the
City. Mr. Corrigan stated that he had considered similar action in the case of
the Airport Commission. Mr. Welt stated that it would be good t� abolish this
Airport Commission also. Mr. Ringgenberg spoke in favor of recommending the forma-
tion of a study committee on Boards and Commissions. Mr. Meardon stated that this
topic should be discussed later after the Charter is completed and this subject
was deferred.
Mr. Baldus stated that the Charter should provide for the formation of a Charter
Review Commission in ten years to review and update this Charter.
Mr. Meardon stated that the Charter Committee should decide whether it was possible,
or desirable to have the three Councilmembers whose terms expire in 1975, finish
their terms under the new Charter. Mr. Meardon said that he has heard citizen
opinions that this should be done and that it should not be done. He recommended
that the Charter Committee get a legal opinion on whether this is possible before
deciding whether it is desirable. Mr. Baldus noted that Section 55.8.a, of the
City Code of Iowa provides that, " the elective officers provided for in the
Charter are to be elected at the next regular City election..." Mr. Meardon re-
ferred to an Attorney General's opinion which stated that the holdover Council-
members would serve in the new government when the Des Moines form was changed.
Mr. Meardon commented that if the legal opinion stated that this can be done,
then it is an important political question which the Charter Committee will have
to decide. Mr. Baldus was requested to have Ms. Donna Beery, the Committee's
legal assistant, and Mr. Robert Martineau research these questions and to obtain
a copy of the Attorney General's opinion for the Charter Committee.
Discussion next turned to initiative and referendum. Mr. Baldus stated that he
has extensively researched these issues drawing upon California and Oklahoma and
that he made the following recommendations based on their experiences:
M
Iowa City Chin to Committee
May 15, 1973
Page 3
F
1. That Section 8.01 could be entitled, "Authority of the voters to Initiate
ai,d Repeal Legislation," instead of "Limitation on Power of Council." This was
deferred.
2. That the idea of a Petitioners' Committee be eliminated so that anybody would
be empowered to start the procedures.
3. That there have been problems in other cities concerning people removing their
names from the petitions after signing it. Mr. Bdldus stated there are two ways
of handling this:
a. Allow people to remove their names up to time of filing.
b. Allow people to remove their names up to Council reconsideration of the
ordinance.
He stated that he recommended a., but if b, was allowed then it should be possible
to add names if others are removed because if this was not done then an opposition
groups could sign the petition, wait for filing, and then remove their names, thus
making the petition invalid. Procedure a would allow fifteen (15) days after the
filing for the petition to be brought up to sufficiency in case of there not being
enough valid signatures for the petition. The Charter Committee was in favor of
using procedure A, but agreed there should be some provision for removal of sig-
natures to allow a person who changes his mind to remove his name. Mr. Baldus
stated that he would add in the draft a provision that required the Clerk to provide
removal forms and to have the withdrawals filed with the Clerk. It was felt that
it would be unnecessary for the Clerk to notify the petitioners of removals of
signatures because the petitioners would take the initiative to find out about
them.
4. That there should be a time limit of six months on the time an initiative
petition could be circulated after the affidavit was filed.
S. That any reference to what instrument could be used in signing the petition
should be removed from the Charter because these provisions have been the subject
of extensive lawsuits.
6. That the petitioners should not be allowed to start the referendum procedure
until after final passage by the Council and that the petition form should indicate
the date of signature.
7. Discussion next centered on the referendum procedure and the suspension of an
ordinance that would permit behavior where there is reliance. Mr. Baldus stated
that he found no cases on this subject and there are three alternatives:
1. To set a time period before any ordinance can go into effect,
with specified exceptions, with the suspension of the ordinance being extended
if there is the filing of a petition for a referendum.
2. The Model Charter procedure, which allows the ordinance to go
into effect but when a petition is filed, the ordinance is suspended,
3. That the ordinance is not suspended at all. The problem then
would be when the ordinance goes into effect and people rely on it and take an
action in accordance with the ordinance and then the ordinance is repealed by
Agh referendum.
Mr. Baldus stated that he recommends procedure. -No. 1, which is used in California
because it would best solve this problem. Ile stated that in California the only
exceptions to ordinances not going into effect for thirty days are: Ordinances
0
Iowa City C'.arter Committee
May 15, 1973
Page a
for elections, street improvements, actions governed by State Law, and actions
needed immediately to assure public health and safety. Mr. Rosenstein asked
whether the Charter Committee would then wish to keep its sixty -day allowance
for filing. Mr. Rosenstein also asked whether with the definition of ordinance
as passed and the requirement that all ordinances.cannot go into effect for a
certain time length; this requirement would extensively slow down the process
of City government. Mr. Baldus stated that he and Mr. Rosenstein would get
together with Mr. Wells, City Manager, to discuss what type action needs to go
into effect immediately. Mr. Baldus stated that a compromise would be to
reduce the time for filing a referendum petition to thirty days to prohibit
an ordinance, with exceptions, from going into effect for those thirty days
subject to a longer suspension if a valid petition is filed, and to allow
specifically an initiative procedure which dould repeal an ordinance but
would not suspend an ordinance. Mr. Baldus moved the above provision. Mr.
Corrigan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Meardon stated that .instead of using a suspension to remove the possibility
of reliance that there be a doctrine of non - reliance in the Charter for these
cases. Mr. Meardon said that with this doctrine no one would risk building
until they were sure the ordinance would go into effect.
B. That there be b requirement that the initiative and referendum proposals
which are to go on the ballot be published in the method provided by State
Law and that the City should pay for this expense.
9. That what should go on the ballot be specified by requiring that a synopsis
of the subject matter of the ordinance in question be placed on the ballot.
10. That there be a requirement that once an initiative ordinance is passed for
the next two years, it can only be repealed by a vote of the people. Thus,
Council cannot for two years repeal that ordinance, although it can by its
own initiative place this question on the ballot. Mr. Baldus stated that the Model
Charter does not provide for any time restrictions on the repeal of an initiative -
passed ordinance and that California only allows initiative - passed ordinances
to be repealed by a vote of the people. Mr. Baldus also recommended that the two -
year provision apply to referendum procedures so that a Council could not pass
an issue defeated by the referendum process for two years but it could submit
that ordinance to the voters for approval or rejection.
11. That there be a provision in the Charter that allows the Council by its own
motion to submit an ordinance to an election in which the results would be
binding, and to allow the Council to submit an ordinance to the people with
the results being advisory only.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
r]
- - -- -..
MINUTES Iowa Citv Charter Committee
May 16, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, Welt, Baldus, Knight,
De Counter
MEMBERS ABSENT: Davidsen, Ringgenberg
STAFF PRESENT: Rosenstein
GUESTS PRESENT: Gordon Jacobs, 606 S. Johnson
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the minute; of May 6, 1973 be approved
as read. Mr. De Counter seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the minutes of May 9, 1973 be approved
as read. Mr. Welt seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Gordon Jacobs read a letter (attached) to the Charter
Committee. In addition he stated that with his plan people
could be elected by appealing to one group. He sated that
he did not specify what type of selected interests would be
represented because this would depend on what the people wanted
at the time. Mr. Jacobs stated that geographical representation
was a selected representation. Mr. Jacobs stated that the
reform movement was an attempt to place middle class values
on City Government. He stated that the need now is not to
clean up City Government, but rather to make it more representative
of the people. Mr. Jacobs stated that limited voting is a
method of representing non - geographical minorities. Mr. Jacobs
stated that although the results of the traditional procedures
are well known, the results of his proposal are unknown and
there is a chance for something good to come out of his pro-
posal. Mr. Corrigan asked Mr. Jacobs if at -large elections
could not also represent different interests, since at the
Present time City Council members represent widely different
interests. Mr. Jacobs stated that this would be even more so
under his proposal. Mr. Jacobs added that he has been told
that limited voting may be unconstitutional, but for the results
that would arise out of this system, it may be worth attempting
it and then finding out if it is illegal.
Discussion was next held on the revised draft of Artical v,
Section C s
4.01 Establishment�readeas follows: "The moved
City Council
may establish Boards, in addition to those required by state
law, and shall specify the title, duties, length of to
r.1i,
°2°
qualifications of members, and othex appropriate matters.
The ^7u11cil may reduce or increase a Board's duties, transfer
duties from one Board to another, or dissolve any Board except
as otherwise provided by state law or this Chapter." Mrs. Cain
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
A motion by Mr. Baldus, seconded by Mr. Welt, and a motion by
Mrs. Cain, seconded by Mr. Baldus, both passed unanimously by
the Committee changed Section 5.02 appointment to read as
follows: "The Council shall appoint all members of Boards,
unless otherwise provided by state law, and shall seek to
provide broad representation on all Boards, including the
establishment of procedures to give at least thirty (30) days'
notice of vacancies before they are filled and to encourage
nominations by citizens and groups."
Mr. Baldus moved that Section 5.03, Rules and Procedures, read
as follows: "The City Council shall establish uniform rules
and procedures for the operation of Boards, which shall include
but are not limited to, the adoption of by -laws, rules pertaining
to open meetings, and conditions for the removal of members for
just cause. The Council shall specify for each Board methods
for informal and formal communication with Council, time
schedule- for the completion of reports requested by Council,
and such other rules as it deems appropriate. A Board may
establish additional rules and procedures that are consistent
with state law, Council rules, and this Chapter." Mr. Welt
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that Section 1.03, Definitions be adopted
except for Section 1.03 (i). These read: "AS used in this
Charter: (a) "City Council" or "Council" means the governing
body of the City, (b) "Council member" means a member of the
Council, including the Mayor, (c) "Shall" imposes a duty,
(d) "Must" states a requirement, (e) "May" confers a power,
(f) "Voter" means a person eligible to register to vote in
Iowa City, (g) "Qualified voter" means a voter who is registered
to vote in Iowa City, (h) "Board" includes a Board, Commission,
Committee, or other similar entity however designated." Mr.
Baldus asked that (i) which defines ordinance be deferred until
initiative and referendum can be further studied.
Mr. Baldus presented the Charter Committee with Draft #3 of
Limitation On and Disclosure of Campaign Expenditures; Disclosure
Of Campaign Contributions and an alternative to this Article.
Mr. Baldus stated that the long version of this proposal should
go on the ballot as one ok the alternatives. Mr. Baldus stated
that the long version specifies the detailed procedures,
whereas, the shorter alternative requires the Council to set
limitations on campaign expenditures and provide procedures
for the disclosure of campaign expenditures and campaign
contributions. Mr. Corrigan stated that the shorter draft
was more consistent with the Charter Committee's philosophy
of keeping the Charter brief, and allowing the Council to
_3_
fill in detail by ordinance. lie stated that in many cases
he had wanted to be more detailed but that philosophy had
prevented him from doing so and with the exception of
initiative and referendum, the Charter should not deal with
detail. Mr. Baldus stated that in this case the Charter
Committee should make these decisions because it can take a
more dispassionate view of campaign expenditures than can a
politically elected body. Mr. Baldus stated that it was question-
able whether a Council adopted provision would be as strong
as the long versions. Mr. Jacobs stated that he favored, in
addition to this provision, a provision that would establish
a campaign fund to pay for the candidate's campaign expenditures.
Mr. Baldus stated he also favored one but that he did not think
it was politically acceptable in Iowa City. Mr. Corrigan
stated that if the small one was adopted and the Council did
not adopt a strong enough provision, there could be an
initiative process used to change the Council's ordinance.
Mr. Baldus moved that the body of the Charter include the short
version of the Article on Limitation on and Disclosure of
Campaign Expenditures, Disclosure of Campaign Contributions,
and the longer draft be placed separately on the ballot to be
voted on as an alternative. Mr. Knight seconded the motion.
Mr. Corrigan objected to the motion because the Charter
Committee had not made a decision on whether there should be
alternatives placed on the ballot. The motion was withdrawn.
Discussion then centered on the legality of placing alternatives
on the ballot. Mr. Baldus stated that Ms. Donna Beary, the
legal assistant for the Charter Committee,has researched this
topic at his direction. He said that her findings showed that
there was nothing that prevented this action as long as the
choices to be made were clear. Mr. Baldus stated he has talked
with Mr. Martineau about this and he stated that the Charter
Committee could legally do it. Mr. Baldus stated that he
finds it unlikely that a court would find this illegal but
that there could never be a guarantee. Mr. Meardon requested
Mr. Baldus to get a written opinion from Mr. Martineau on
this subject. Mr. Meardon stated that once this research is
compiled, the Charter Committee would get an opinion on this
matter from the City Attorney,
Discussion next centered on whether the Charter Committee wanted
to offer alternatives. Mr. Corrigan stated that the Charter
Committee should not offer alternatives because it was the
responsibility of the Charter Committee to come up with what
it considers to be best and then let the voters choose if they
want it. Mr. Corrigan stated that the Charter Committee has
been studying City Government for six months and if the Charter
Committee can't come up with something, how does it expect the
voters who haven't studied the issues in detail to make those
choices. Mr. Baldus.stated that the Charter Committee could
't'
_4a
offer its choice and recommendation `^ the main body of the
cliartui and then offer the alternatives for the vcters to
choose if they want to. Mr. Baldus said that the alternatives
could be used for politically dangerous provisions and where
the Charter Committee does not have solid agreement. Mrs.
Cain stated that care must be used in how the alternatives
are presented on the ballot because it could be very confusing.
Mr. Meardon stated that there were two categories where
alternatives could be offered: 1.) When the Charter is silent
on a subject and then the alternative is to add a provision,
l.) When the provision is in the Charter and the alternative
is a provision to be voted as a replacement to the provision
in the Charter. Mr. Corrigan added a third category, that
being when there is a provision in the Charter and the
alternative is to remove the provision. Mr. Baldus moved
that the Committee provide alternatives which could be of any
of the above three categories. Mr. Knight seconded. The motion
passed six to one with Mr. Corrigan voting against the motion.
Mr. Meardon told Mr. Jacobs that if he wanted to it would be
appropriate for him to submit the language of his proposal to
the Charter Committee.
Chairman Meardon adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
ou
TO: The Iowa City Charter Commission
FROM: Gordon Jacobs
RE: Suggested modifications in city government election procedures
Although I have some rather specific notions and preferences regarding
the structural form of city government, I would like to take this oppor-
tunity to address elements of election procedures. In doing so, I hope
it is not too late to raise issues of fundamental importance to our city
and question core concepts of the National Municipal League's Model
City Charter.
My suggestions are to limit the number of candidates that a citizen
votes for to co tsLderably less than the number of seats that are open.
(For example If 4 seats were open, one might vote for 1 (or 2) rather
than 4), and to permit a candidate to be declared a winner in an election
with less than a majority vote.
This suggested modification may seem mechanical and minor, but, if
adopted, it would have implications on both the substance of municipal
activities and the nature and quality of candidates.
1 Making this suggestion is based on the premise that although no form
or procedure can substitute for quality people In goverment, such
claracterlsties do have a definite influence on who runs for local govern-
ment office, and, thus, on what policies are (or are not) generated. My
suggestion, like the others that have come to you, is based on a parti-
cular, perhaps idealized, conception of what local government should
I be. The importance that is placed on the potential effects of this sug-
gestion will relate to your agreement or disagreement with fundamental
concepts of what is good or bad about local government and the changes
that are needed In Iowa City.
I believe:
that the substance of local government activity should be issues
of high concern to citizens, -that the council should realistically confront
the impacts that financial allocations, activities, and policies have on
various groups of people, and --that to achieve these high levels of concern
and realism, major affected Interests must be represented.
If we have a structure that promotes an assemblage of similar interests
(and in many ways, similar people) we will effectivelysubmerge
realistic appraisals of policy impact and prevent the initiation of policy,
I believe that this is very close to what we do, in fact, have.
I believe that the structural causes of this observed result are procedures
Ailk that tend to make all members of council representative of broad majority
interests. City wide elections and the ability to vote as many times
as there are vacant seats force candidates to appeal to a singular
majority or compromise the interests of significant minorities in order
to gain a seat on council.
Effects To appeal to a majority in a city-wide election often means dealing with
of city Inoffensive, procedural characteristics (like a promise for efficiency)
i
Further, I believe that the official suppression of minority voices Is
directly related to the hic,•h ^-gr9e of alienation that exists in our society.
Advantages Although, I could not go so ,ar as to agree with the Model City Charter
and die- that. the use of districts assures that major segments of the population
advantages are represented (Model Charter, p. 14), district voting (or nominating) does
of use of help focus candidates on matters of specific substance and high interest
districts to people within a physical boundary.
I think It should be recognized that although a geographic unit (ward) was
at one time an adequate base for defining Interests, today there are many
other possible bases for common interests e.g. (age, sex, Income, etc.)
Furthermore, the bases of interest keep changing over time.
The suggestion of reducing the number of candidates that one can vote
for in relation to the number of seats open will make It possible. for
a candidate to be among the top choices in the final election with fewer
votes. If, in addition, this highly rated candidate were permitted to take
a council seat with less than a majority vote, that person could campaign
on matters of substance addressed to a smaller number of people. Unlike
districting there is the advantage that the base of interest is not predefined.
wide
rather than controversial matters of substance and direction. Such
elections
city -wide procedural matters are known to be of some concern to many,
out studies show that these are the major concerns of very few. Such
concerns seem to be highest among an affluent middle class that relies
an government for little that to crucial to their dally lives and seeks
out a least cast path for government.
Effects
By considering It necessary to vote for every open seat on a city -wide
of voting
basis a candidate can hope to accumulate many of the voters low priority,
for all
third or fourth choice votes, if not their first, Thus, someone with weak
open
general appeal can be elected over someone that strongly represents a
seats
narrower group. With such a procedure, differences and conflicts
among population segments will remain outside council deliberations.
Majority rule as a democratic principle need not and should not mean
suppression of minority voices at the lowest level of representative
6
government. Therefore, I favor a charter that will encourage the repro -
sentation of different interests and not one that sacrifices the realism
of our differences to achieve do aura of consensus.
i
Further, I believe that the official suppression of minority voices Is
directly related to the hic,•h ^-gr9e of alienation that exists in our society.
Advantages Although, I could not go so ,ar as to agree with the Model City Charter
and die- that. the use of districts assures that major segments of the population
advantages are represented (Model Charter, p. 14), district voting (or nominating) does
of use of help focus candidates on matters of specific substance and high interest
districts to people within a physical boundary.
I think It should be recognized that although a geographic unit (ward) was
at one time an adequate base for defining Interests, today there are many
other possible bases for common interests e.g. (age, sex, Income, etc.)
Furthermore, the bases of interest keep changing over time.
The suggestion of reducing the number of candidates that one can vote
for in relation to the number of seats open will make It possible. for
a candidate to be among the top choices in the final election with fewer
votes. If, in addition, this highly rated candidate were permitted to take
a council seat with less than a majority vote, that person could campaign
on matters of substance addressed to a smaller number of people. Unlike
districting there is the advantage that the base of interest is not predefined.
p
TO MOM Ise9.
1. The compromise imposed on the use of direct district voting (i.e.
using a district as a base for nominations but making elections city -wide)
could be employed with this suggestion. 'the non di,triet, at -large
candidates could run in a primary in which people would cast only
I or 2 votes. The top vote-getters would then run in the election round
wlth voters permitted the number of votes equal to open seats. This
compromise may not make for greater minority representation in that
the election will still be based on city -wide issues, but it will tend
to eliminate the weaker of the candidates who rely on a non-specific,
city-wide appeal.
2. A more experimental compromise would be the use of three distinct
election voting categories; at large, district, and selected interests.
example: type seats vote for:
at large 3 3
district 3 3
selected
interests 3 1
Equal As a somewhat separate but related Issue, I would suggest that an
opportun- election fund be created (something similar to what has been proposed
Ity among at the national level). Such a procedure could be used to limit and
candidates equate election campaign expenditures in city -wide elections. This fund
would go much further than an election expense limitation In moving toward
equal opportunity In the election process.
Conclusion At a past session of this body, you spoke of being too modern to use
regarding terminology such as, "A modern day and age." I think you should be
us "a of aware of a body of opinion that believes that when It comes to modern
Model societal needs and making a democratic system work for more than the
Charter maJority the Model City Charter may be conceptually better suited to 1910
than to 1973.
W]
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
May 22, 1473
MEMBERS PRESENT: Baldus, Davidsen, Meardon, Corrigan, Cain,
DeCounter, Welt, Ringgenberg, Knight
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Stdit Present: Rosenstein
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M.
Discussion was held on the legality of holding over the three
Council members who have two years left on their terms. Mr.
Baldus stated that he was compiling material on the subject,
including legal research by Ms. Donna Beary and an Attorney
General's opinion, and will forward the material to Mr. Mar-
tineau for his analysis.
Mr. Baldus stated that Ms. Beary has left for Des Moines to work
is the Legal Department there, and it will be necessary to secure
the services of another law student. Mr. Meardon stated that
the Council would have to approve the hiring of another legal
assistant.
Mr. Meardon stated that he had delivered to the Council and *he
City Manager copies of the sections pertaining to the powers
and duties of the Council and of the City Manager.
Mr. Meardon stated that he has received Mr. Mar'�ineau's comments
on the sections .on the Council and City Manager.
M.r. Baldus stated that he had asked Mr. Martineau to make comments
on policy matters as well as make comments on the legal questions.
Turning to Section 2.06 Mayor, Mr. Martineau raised the question
of whether the Mayor should serve at the pleasure of the Council
because 1) it demeans the position and 2) it might be illegal.
Secton 56.3 of the City Code of Iowa states "Two year or staggered
four year terms of office for the mayor and council members."
Mr. Martineau's comments also question the need of having the
phrase "who shall have the title of" because i-t added nothing
to the Charter. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that Section 56.3 of the
City Code might not prevent having the Mayor serve at the pleasure
of the Council because he would have his term as a Councilmember
although he would be designated as Mayor. Mr. Meardon stated
that if there was any legal question about having the Mayor serve
at the pleasure of Council, the Charter should be clarified. .
Mr. Baldus moved that the Mayor be elected by the Council for
a two year term. Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion passed unani-
mously. Mr. Baldus moved that the question of when the Mayor
would be elected be left out of the Charter, thus allowing the
may 1973
Iowa City Charter Committee
Page 2
Council to decide. Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion carried
seven for and two against with Mr. Meardon and Mrs. Cain dissenting.
Mr. Martineau's comment questioned whether the intent of the
Charter in Section 2.06 was to .remove the Mayor's responsibility
as the Chief executive of the City. He continued that Section
60.1 of the City Code. of Iowa prescribes that the Mayor is the
Chief Executive officer, apd a Charter cannot legally take this
power away. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that the sub - committee on
the Mayor and Council had discussed this issue, and had agreed
that Section 60 which makes the Mayor the Chief Executive does
apply no matter what the Charter says, but that the sub - committee
did not want to repeat it and add emphasis to this responsibility,
perhaps making this phrase a public issue. Mr.
Ringgenberg stated that there are oth-,r powers the Mayor has in
State law which are not repeated in the Charter. Mr. Ringgenberg
further stated that since the Charter gives the supervisory powers
of the City to the City Manager, the Mayor does not have those
powers. Mr. Meardon stated that there is a question of whether
the official papers of the City had to be signed by the Chief
Executive, and if so, these had to be someone designated as Chief
Executive. Mrs. Davidsen said the Charter should be clear that
the Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Baldus stated
that part of this question evolves from the !.dea of what Chief
Executive Officer means. Mr. daldus stated that Mr. Martineau
felt that the intent of the City Code of Iowa was that the Mayor
was not an agent of Council, but rather a general agent who
would have discretion and could give guidance to the Manager.
Mr. Baldus stated that there may be a difference between what
the drafters of a bill tried to say and what they said on paper.
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that the problem arises that the laws of
Iowa were originally written for the Mayor- Council form of govern-
ment and later they were modified to allow the Council- Manager
form. Mr. Baldus moved to delete the phrase "official representa-
tive" and substitute the phrase "Chief Executive Officer." Mrs.
Davidsen seconded. Mr. Baldus stated that this should be added
because it might cause the Charter legal problems and that it
could not make any difference because the duties of the City
Manager are spelled.out in detail. Mr. Meardon suggested that
the phrase read "official representative and Chief Executive
Officer of the City." The motion was amended to accept this
change and it passed eight for and one against with Mr. Welt
voting against.
Discussion turned to Section 2.07 of the Charter which reads
"All powers of the City are vested in the Council except as
otherwise provided by law and this Charter." Mr. Martineau
commented that this might be inconsistent with State law which
provides that "all powers of the City are vested in the Council
except as otherwise provided by State Law." Mr. Mar'tineau's
;i
ttay 22, 1973
Iowa City Charter. Committee
Page 3
coamtents continued that Section 56 of the City Code of Iowa pro -
vides that the Charter can specify the powers and duties of the
Mayor and Council consistent with the City Code of Iowa and
since all powers are vested in the Council, vesting a power in
any o:.her body could be inconsistent with State Law. Mr. Baldus
stated that the question is what it consistent with the City
Code of Iowa, because the Charter can prescribe the powers of
the Mayor and Council consistent with the act. Mr. Baldus stated
that since inconsistent is defined in the Code as 'irreconcilable',
it would be liberally interpreted. Mr. Baldus stated that if
the strict interpretation of the act was taken, then much of what
the Charter Committee wanted to do could not be done. Mr. Baldus
said that the wording of the City Code of Iowa is such that it
will lead to a liberal interpretation. Mr. Rosenstein stated
that the arguement can be made that since Section 11.1 of the
City Code of Iowa vests a power of the City in the Council except
as otherwise provided by State Law and Sectio;i 56 of the City
Code of Iowa allows Charters to provide for the powers and duties
of the Mayor and City Council, there is flexibility. Mr. Rosen-
stein further stated that if a strict interpretation was made
it could be questionable whether a Charter could provide for a
Council - Manager form of government. Mr. Meardon stated that it
was very important to leave the phrase 'this Chater" in this
6_ section and the Committee agreed to do so. Sever%!. grammatical
changes were made to Section 2.O6 and 2.07 Section 2.07 now
reads, "All powers of the City are vested in the Council except
as otherwise provided by State Law or this Charter.
Mr. Baldus read several grammatical changes suggested by Mr. Martineau,
and these were accepted. The Committee turned to Section 4.02,
Accountability - Removal, of the City Manager. Mr. Martineau
commented providing that the City Manager be under the supervision
of the City Council was inconsistent with Section 60 of the City
Code of Iowa which made the Mayor the Chief Executive Officer
of the City and gave him supervisory duties which have not been
delegated by law to a City Manager. The Committee disagreed
with this opinion and decided to keep the Section as is.
Mr. Martineau's comments on Section 4.04(a) were that this section
is unduly cumbersome for what it is trying to accomplish. The
Committee felt that while it may be cumbersome, it is necessary
in order to express the thought behind the Section.
Mr. Martineau asked if it was necessary to draw the distinction
between supervision and direction, officer and employee and to
list the police, fire and engineering departments of the City
in Section 4.04(2). Mr. Meardon stated that the three depart-
ments were listed because they were listed in State Law, and
since the police and fire departments were under civil service,
May 22, 1973
Iowa City Charter Committee
Page 4
this removes any doubt as to who controls these departments.
Mrs. Davidsen stated that these three departments were covered
already by the Manager's power to supervise and direct the admini-
stration of City Government. Mr. Ringgenberg moved to take out
the specific mentioning of these departments. Mr. Baldus seconded
and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Baldus moved that the
Section read "conduct of employees of the City appointed by the
Manager" rather than "conduct of officers and employees .. "
The reason for this change was that the only officers of the
City are the members of the City Council and thus the phrase
is not necessary. The Committee agreed unanimously to this
change without voting.
Discussion turned to Section 4.05 Ineligibility - Prohibited Acts.
Mr. Martineau stated that according to Section 12.2 of the City
Code of Iowa, a City could not legally provide for a penalty
that is a misdomeanor and then prescribe an additional punish-
ment, that being removal from office. Mr. Baldus moved that the
last sentence in Section 4.05 read "a person violating this section
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition may be removed
from office pursuant to State Law." Mr. DeCounter seconded. Mr.
Ringgenberg moved to amend the motion to read "a person violating
this section may be removed from office pursuant to State Law.
Mrs. Cain seconded the amendment, and it carried five for and four
against with Ringgenberg, Cain, Baldus, DeCounter, and Knight
voting for and Corrigan, Welt, Meardon, and Davidsen voting against.
Mr. Martineau's comments questioned the separation of 4.05 (10)
to administer oaths. Mr. Ringgenberg moved that this be.deleted.
Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion passed seven to two with
Meardon and Cain voting against.
Mr. Martineau's comments questioned the necessity of the phrase
"having the power to compel the attendence of witnesses and the
production of books and papers or other evidence" on the end of
Section 4.05 (8) which reads "Without notice cause the affairs
of any department or conduct of any officer under the supervision
of the Manager or of any employee of the City to be investigated
and to examine or investigate any department of the City." Mr.
Corrigan moved that this phrase be deleted. Mr. DeCounter
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Baldus announced that Mr. Martineau would be in Iowa City on
June 1, 1973 and he could arrange a meeting between the Charter
Committee and Mr. Martineau. The Charter Committee instructed
Mr. Baldus to dosoif Mr. Martineau can fit it into his schedule.
Mrs. Davidsen stated that the Charter Committee should have a
marathon session to complete the drafting of the Charter.
V
ei
f`
�i
r
�a
W
pJ
hiay 22, 1973
Iowa City Charter Committee
Paoe 5
Discussion was held on the draft of Article VI Boards, Commissions,
Committees. Mr. Baldus moved Section 5..01 Establishment be
adopted as written. Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion passed
unanimously. Mr. Baldus moved that Section 5.01 read "The
Council shall appoint all members of Boards, unless otherwise
provided by State Law, and shall seek to provide broad represen-
tatiun on all Boards. The Council shall establish procedures
to give at least thirty (30) days notice of vacancies before
they are filled and shall encourage nominations by citizens."
Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Welt moved that Section 5.03 Rules and Procedures be adopted
as read. Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rosenstein next made a presentation of one alternative of
how the City could be divided into three districts. He stated
that no precinct could cross the State Legislative District, but
that a District line could. Mr. Rosenstein stated that this .
map utilized24 precincts, 14 of which were the same as are pre-
sently used. He further stated that it was difficult to divide
the City into three districts because it would require revision
of some of the precincts in order to maintain the one person -
one vote principle. Mr. Rosenstein also stated that this map
utilizedthe principle of cutting the City into thirds as one
would cut a pie into thirds, and that the new precincts and the
District lines were based solely on population. Mr. Baldus moved
that this map be adopted and sent to the Council as a recommenda-
tion for the division into districts. Mr. Meardon stated that it
would first be necessary to talk with the County Auditor about
the mechanics of the re- precincting. The motion was withdrawn
Mr.. Meardon stated that he, a delegation of Committee members,
and Mr. Rosenstein would ask the County Auditor for her comments,
her legal opinion and her opinion on how to draw the districts
in the most efficient way.
Mr. Baldus moved that the Charter Committee hold a marathon session
on Saturday, May 26, 1973 at 10:00 A.M. at the Civic Center.
Mr. DeCounter seconded and the Committee agreed to the time.
Mr. Rosenstein will inform the Press about the meeting, and call
the members to notify them of the meeting place.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
,luly 12, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
MINUTES
Meardon, Cain, Davidsen, Welt, Ringgenberg,
DeCounter
Knight, Baldus, Corrigan
Rosenstein
The meeting was called to order at 8:45. Mr. Meardon stated that
this meeting was called because Council had referred the City
Attorney's letter to the Charter Committee for a report back. Copies
of the City Attorney's letter and the memorandum from Councilman
Loren Hickerson were distributed to the.Charter Committee and read.
Mr. Meardon stated there were two questions from these letters.
one being whether the Charter should be delayed past the September
6th election and two being whether the Committee wants to go ahead
with Initiative and Referendum knowing that there was a 50 -50 chance
that the Courts might find Initiative and Referendum illegal. Mr.
Meardon stated if a decision was made to continue with Initiative
and Referendum the exceptions drawn by the City Attorney in his
letter would have to be resolved. Mrs. Cain stated in order for
the Cities to fully utilize their Home Rule powers and to have
Initiative and Referendum some City would have to propose Initiative
and Referendum in order to get a Court decision on it. Mr. Meardon
stated that he interpreted Initiative and Referendum as being legal
since it was a limitation on the power of Council and thus
justifiable under Section 56 of the City Code of Iowa.
Mr. Meardon stated that the Charter Committee has heard the public
over the last six months and the Charter as proposed is the
Committee's best judgement and that he hasn't seen a reason to
change the Charter. Mr. Meardon stated that it was up to the Council
to set the date of election and that it was unfortunate that the
Charter Committee had.not gotten the Charter done a month earlier.
Mrs. Davidsen stated that if the Charter Committee recommended to
Council that Council wait past the September 6th deadline that the
chances for future consideration of the Charter would be greater.
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that one
special election on the Charter
and Referendum on September 6,
and Referendum on the ballot as
K]
alternative might be to hold the
minus the provisions for Initiative
1973, and then later put Initiative
an amendment to the Charter. Mr.
01 _;
m
qW
ICY.'
a 0
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
MINUTES
`l
Meardon stated that the basic issue behind the problems of Charter
is the hold over the Councilmen. Mr. Meardon stated that if the
decisicm was to wait until all the court cases were completed on
the City Code of Iowa this would involve a very lengthy wait.
Mr. Welt moved to recommend that the Charter minus the provisions
on Initiative and Referendum be placed on the ballot this
September and that Initiative and Referendum be placed on later
as an amendment. This motion died for lack of a second. There
was no motion to delete Initiative and Referendum from the Charter.
The Charter Committee thus turned to the question of limitations
on the power of Initiative and Referendum. Mrs. Cain stated that
for the sake of clarity it would be wise to add revenue bonds even
though they may be excluded as being an administrative action.
Mr. Meardon stated that revenue bonds would be excluded anyhow
because the bonds are an appropriation of money and are administrative
in nature. Mr. Meardon stated that limitations listed in the Charter
are not the sole limitations to the power of Initiative and
Referendum. He stated that there are many legal limitations in State
law and many limitations because an act is administrative or
executive in nature. Mrs. Davidsen said that there are problems in
the Charter Committee's mind as to what the Charter means and if
there are problems in the Council's mind then Council will wait
until these things can be defined before the Charter is presented
to the voters. Mr. Meardon stated that the Charter will never be
defined until the Courts rule upon it. Mr. Meardon stated it is
necessary to say that you agree in principle and to try to be as
definitive as possible.
Mrs. Cain moved that Article 7, Section 701.51E be changed to read
"the issuance of bonds." Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion
carried five for, and one against with Mr. Meardon voting against.
Mr. Meardon stated that he did not want to be so all inclusive as
to include any possible bond that may become available in the future.
Mrs. Cain moved to have the sentence read" the issuance of general
obligation and revenue bonds" rather than just the issuance of bonds.
The Committee agreed to this change with no objections. This change
would thus mean that the power of Initiative and Referendum would
not extend to the issuance of general obligation and revenue bonds.
Mrs. Davidsen moved that all amendments affecting the City Zoning
Ordinance be excluded from the power of Initiative and Referendum.
P,ig :
10%1A CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
c All NI vi, I +C
Mr. Ringgenberg seconded. Mrs. Davidsen said she feared allowing
Initiative and Referendum for zoning cases since this could be
dominated by people with money, and that it would make planning
difficult in the City. Mrs. Cain suggested that the whole provision
could be deleted plus leaving interpretation as to what is subject
to Initiative and Referendum up to the Courts. The question was
called and the motion was defeated two for, and four against with
Welt and Ringgenberg voting for and Meardon, Cain, DeCounter, and
Davidsen voting against. Mrs. Davidsen moved that the section
pertaining to limitation on Initiative and Referendum concerning
City zoning be deleted. Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion was
defeated two for and four against with Davidsen and Cain voting for,
and Meardon, Welt, Ringgenberg, and DeCounter voting against.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30.
KI
�" _'
2
JOINT MEETING WITH CHARTER COMMISSION
COUNCIL DISCIISSTON
JULY 17, 1471
12:30 P.M.
The Iowa City City Council met in informal session with
th(, Charter Commission at 12:30 P.M. on the 17th day of July,
1973 in the Conference Room at the Civic Center.
Councilmen present: Brandt, Czarnecki, White, Connell
(12:55). Absent: Nickerson. Charter Committee members
present: Chairman William Meardon, Pat Cain and Penny David-
son. Others present: Wells, Honohan, Klaus, Kraft, Stolfus,
7,elenka, Maune, Rosenstein.
The Mayor announced discussion of the Charter and of
the City Attorney's letter of July 10th on proposed initia-
ticn and referendum provision for the Charter. Chairman
Meardon explained their amendment on page 17, Section 7.01
B l(e) to insert the words "and Revenue" after the word
"Obligation ". In answer to the question on the committee's
feeling on an election timetable, he noted general concen-
sus of no specific timetable, that this was in the province
of the Council. Council discussed provisions for amending
the Charter; role of the Committee during election, they
y would campaign for it, glad to participate and explain.
The City Attorney explained the recommendations presented
in his letter. The Mayor thanked the Committee for their work
on the Charter. The Chairman of the Committee then thanked
the Council and the staff for their help.
Mayor Brandt announced executive session to discuss
appointments to the Housing Commission, and reminded Council
of special meeting at 4:00 P.M. on Friday for action on the
Charter when Councilman Nickerson is present. The Clerk was
asked to get information on publication for the Charter.
The City Attorney advised that the Ordinance on use of the
Iowa River was on today's formal agenda.
h
Y:
ERR]
ERR
MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
::ay 23 , 1973
ETIF
14EMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Welt, DeCounter, Davidsen,
Baldus, Ringgenberg.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
GUESTS PRESENT:
Knight, Corrigan
Rosenstein
Robert Welsh
Chairman Meardon called the meeting,to order at 4:10 P.M. Mrs. Davidsen
stated that paragraph 4 of the minutes of May 9, 1973 was incorrect
in stating that the Staff does not make reports to the Boards and
Commissions and it should only state that Boards and Commissions need
Staff reports to function. This correction was accepted.
Rev. Welsh presented the Charter Committee with a letter from the
Citizens for a Better Iowa City. (copy attached) In addition
Rev. Welsh stated that he opposed the offering of alternatives on the
Charter because someone may favor the Charter but be against one
alternative and thus vote against the whole Charter in order to assure
that one alternative does not win. He further stated that he wanted to
know exactly what he was voting for and with alternatives he might get
a Charter containing provisions that he opposed.
Rev. Welsh, acting as Chairman of the CATV Committee stated that it was
important that all options were kept open in the Charter in relation-
ship to Cable TV ownership and operation. Mr. Meardon stated that all
powers are vested in the Council except as otherwise provided in State
Law of the or the Charter and that this broad statement allowed Council
whatever flexibility it wanted. Mrs. Davidsen stated that State Law
also allowed Council to establish an authority if it wanted to.
Mr. Meardon read a letter from Mr. Jay Honohan, City Attorney. (copy
attached)
Discussion was held on the provision on Campaign Expenditures. Mr.
Baldus stated that now he felt that a short provision would be better
because of the lack of time left to work on the Charter, and because
concern which is arising now nationally would pressure a Council into
setting a limit on campaign expenditures that was enforceable. Mr.
Baldus presented the Committee with Draft 4A, which puts a duty on
Council to (1) impose limitations on the amount of campaign expendi-
tures that can be made by the candidate and all other persons in their
behalf. (2) Prescribe procedure requiring a candidate to disclose
his campaign contribution before and after every election. (3) Bar a
candidate from serving if he violates the limitation on campaign
Y
FS! Elp!ggy
A
page 2
May 23 Minutes
Charter Committee
expenditures and to prescribe other remedies for violations. Mr.
Baldus stated that it could be up to Council to set the exact
limitation.
Discussion centered on the philosophy of limiting campaign expenditures
and on disclosure of campaign contributions. Mr. Baldus moved that
the charter Committee adopt a requirement in the Charter that Council
set limitations on campaign expenditures in a form similar to draft
4A. Mrs. Davidsen seconded. Mrs. Davidsen stated that it was possible
that a Council that was well known might set the limit on the primary
election so low that someone who was unknown might not have the reason
to become known by the public. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that the work-
ability of this proposal is the "key," and that he is willing to give
it a try. Be further stated that this proposal could be popular with
the public. Mr. Baldus stated that the inclusion of a provision
requiring the council to establish a limitation on campaign expendi-
tures would force discussion of the issue and that initiative and
referendum would assure that a fair limitation was set. Mr. Welt
stated that this provision would give people with less financial support
more c•f a chance to get elected. Mr. Baldus stated that this would
result in confidence in the independence of members of the Council and
that it would reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns. The
.question was called and the motion to have a provision in the Charter
was passed unanimously.
Mr. Baldus stated that Section 20A would provide that there be a
dollar limit on the amount spent by the candidate and people in his
behalf for each election. Mr. Meardon stated that the fact that the
Council would have to act in public would prevent a Council from misusing
the limitation. Mr. Ringgenberg moved that Section 20 (a) read,
"The Council shall prescribe by ordinance limitations on the amount. of
campaign expenditures made by and on behalf of candidates for election
to Council." Mr. DeCounter seconded and the motion passed six to one
with Mr. Meardon voting against.
Mr. Ringgenberg moved that Section 20 (b) read, "The Council shall also
prescribe by ordinance procedures requiring immediately before all
elections (primary, municipal, special, and run -off), the disclosure
of the amount, source, and form of all contributions received by, and
all expenditures made by (1) the cadidate, and (2) any person, for the
purpose of aiding or securing the candidate's nomination or election."
Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was held on whether there should be a limitation placed on
the size of contributions one individual could make. Mr. Baldus
moved that Section 20 (c) read, "The Council shall prescribe by
ordinance, limitations on the amount of campaign contributions mane by
any person on behalf of a candidate." Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the
motion was defeated two for and five against with Mr. Baldus and
Mr. Meardon voting for the motion.
H
0
page. 3
2:i Minutes
e:iuu ter CommiLtee
Discussion was held on the prescription of penalties for the violation
of the limitation on campaign expenditures and the disclosure of
campaign contributions and expenditures. Discussion specifically
centered on whether the Charter should prescribe the conditions for
the revocation of a candidate's right to serve on the Council. Mr. when a
Baldus stated that this should be done in two cases; hen al candidate
candidate fails to file a disclosure report, (2) _
expends more than the limitation allows. htMto servescould bteaused by r. Welt
vision that required revocation of a rig
a candidates opponents, if they expended money in that person's behalf
so that the amount of money expended by or on behalf of the individual
was more than the limitation. Mr. Baldus stated that
would revokenaaction
was challenged in court he doubted whether a judge
person's right to serve if the money was expended without his knowledge.
Mr. Baldus also stated that the ordinance could be drafted to prohibit
this problem. Mr. Rosenstein stated that if the revocation of office
was to be prescribed by ordinance it might be in conflict with State
Law because Section 12.2 of the City Code of Iowa stated that a City
may not provide a penalty in excess of one hundred dollar fine or
thirty days impresonment for the violation of an ordinance. Mr. Meardon
stated that this was not a penalty but a condition for election.
stated viola -
Mr. LeCounter stated that since there could be various types
tions of these provisions, there should be variability of the severity
of the penalties given for the violations. .Mr. Meardon stated that
the Charter should have the conditions of revocation of the right to
serve to the Council since there is a mandate in the Charter for some
conditions and the interest of the people will force the council to
act. Mr. Welt stated that since it is hard to get
Council now, there should not be something in the charter that could
cause additional trouble to a candidate. Mr. Meardon stated that there
would still be candidates cunning and that the overriding public
of this provision was so important that it should be done.
Mr. Baldus moved that the conditions for revocation of a candidate right
to serve be (1) Expenditure of funds greater than the limit set by
Council, (2) Failure to make timely disclosures. Mrs. Cain seconded
and the motion was defeated three for and four against with WCain,
Meardon, and Baldus voting for and DeCounter, Ringgenberg,
Davidsen voting against.
The Committee agreed unanimously to have Section 20 (c) red as follows,
"The Council shall further prescribe by ordinance, (1) penalties
violation of the expenditure limitations and disclosure requirements
it establishes pursuant to this section, and (2) conditions for the
revocation of a candidate's right to serve on Council if he or she is
elected."
ry The meeting was adjourned at 5;30 p.m.
I.,
M
11
Citizens For A Better Iowa City
Iowa City Charter Committee
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Mombers of the Charter Committee:
We would remind the Charter Committee of its basic function:
to recommend to the City Council (and in turn the citizens
of Iowa City) what it deems to be the best possible form
of government for our community at this point in history.
It is not to be assumed that the committee will be unanimous in its
vote on each and every issue; nor is it to be assumed that compromise
is the only or best alternative.
We suggest that the Charter Committee present to the council what it
believes by majority vote to be the best charter for our city. We
strongly urge that all substantive recommendations be contained in a
single charter proposal and that specific issues not be listed sep-
arately on the ballot. In light of your recommendation, it will thents
be incumbent upon the citizens of the community to make such judgems
and take such action as they deem wise.
More is one further word that we would express and that is our deep
appreciation for the time and commitment that each and every one of you
has given and is giving to your committee assignment. We are aware
of the long hours you are spending and the citizens of this community,
whether they agree or disagree with your recommendations, are truly
indebted to you.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Welsh
Chairman, CBIC
I
� l
..�.... ®.mom.. a ...., .
Office of City Attorney
May 23, 1973 (919) 997.9603
William L. Meardon
Chairman, Iowa City Charter Committee
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Bill:
You have requested my opinion on the possibility of placing alternate
choices on the ballot involving the proposed City Charter. Specifically,
your question was as follows:
"A question has arisen concerning the possibility of
submitting certain alternate choices on the ballot involving
the proposed City Charter. For example, could a recall pro -
vision.be submitted and voted on with the general Charter so
that such a provision would be included or excluded depending
upon the vote ?"
I interpret the above question not to be one on the matter of submitting
alternate charters or alternate forms of government or a combination of
both on the same ballot. As I understand the question, you wish to know
if, in addition to submitting a proposed charter, may there be submitted
for adoption by the voters certain sections which the voters could add to
the proposed charter if they cast a favorable vote on that section. I also
assume that you have not requested an opinion from me on the validity of a
recall provision itself.
It is my opinion that the submission of alternate choices, as you sug-
gest in your letter, on the same ballot as the Charter, is not allowed under
the City Code of Iowa, and would render the Charter election subject to
challenge.
I have examined a variety of cases and statutes in various jurisdictions
and I believe that the following appear to be determinative of the above
question:
1. That the provisions of State law relating to adoption and.amendment
of a charter are mandatory, prohibitory and exclusive. Leighton.v. Abell
(Minn.) 31 NW 2d 646; Blanchard v. Hartwell (Cal.) 63 P. 349; Maher v. Jackson
_2_
May 23, 1973
To: William L. Meardon
157 NW 561; House v. Saginaw (Mich.) 54 NW 2d 314 56; Am. Jur.
2d Mon. Corp. Sec. 51 p. 109, and McQuillan Mun. Corp. Vol. 2, Section
9.27.
2. House File 574 the Municipal Home Rule Act or City Code does
not provide as some State laws do for the alternative submissions that you
propose and does state in Section 55:
Sec. 55..." A City may adopt a home rule charter only by the
following procedures: ..."
3. Section 55, paragraphs 5 and 6 provide for alternative charters to
be submitted but are silent as to alternates to sections or additions to
a proposed charter.
In view of the above, it is my opinion that the submission of alternates
to a proposed charter is not proper unless the alternate is a separate charter
itself, and then only if the procedure of Section 55 of House File 574 lu
followed.
JRH:sb
U
Respectfully submi
Jay ,H,'K /11b�'Mn
City�Attorney
_a MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
May 26, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Ringgenberg, Baldus, Knight,
Davidsen, DeCounter, Corrigan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Welt
STAFF PRESENT: Rosenstein
Vice - chairperson Cain called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Baldus moved that the minutes of May 15, 1973 be approved as read..
Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
/ Mr. DeCounter moved that the minutes of May 16, 1973 be approved as
corrected. Mr. Ringgenberg seconded and the motion carried unanimously
Discussion was held.on Mr. Jacobs presentation. Mr. Baldus stated
that Mr. Jacobs proposal is based on the same principle as is.cumula-
tive voting which would be more acceptable than limited voting. Mr.
Baldus also stated that the Charter Committee should consider
Mr. Jacobs' statement that the Model C't Charter is based on honesty
in government and is now outmodeedand— tFiere is a need for new methods
of solving problems.
Discussion was held on what type of commentary should accompany the
Charter.
Discussion next centered on a draft of a preamble and a copy of
Detroit's Preamble and Statement of Rights which had been submitted
by Mr. Rosenstein to the sub- committee on the Preamble. Mr. Meardon
stated that the preamble should set the tone for the Charter and
show that the City exists for the people it serves. Mr. Corrigan
stated that the Preamble should be an alert response to the present
situation in Iowa.City. Mrs. Davidsen stated that the preamble should
be pertinent to Iowa City and provide a basis whereby future
governmental officials could review their principles. Mrs. Davidsen
moved that the Charter should contain a statement of principles upon
which the Charter is based and the City should operate and that the
AUL sub - committee on the preamble should work on this. Mrs. Cain
seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was next held on initiative and referendum. Mr. Baldus
moved that the Charter include provisions for initiative and re-
ferendum. Mrs. Davidsen seconded the motion. Mr. Corrigan asked if
the Charter Committee could accomplish its goal with initiative only.
ALy-
0
page 2
Charter Minutes
May 26, 1573
E
Mr. Corrigan state.i that initiative suggests a cooperative venture
between the people and the Council where referendum questions
the quality and goodwill of the Council and assumes that the Council
and the people are split in viewpoint. lie further stated that he
was not sure a community of Iowa City's size needed a procedure to
keep a Council in line. Mr. Meardon stated that he w"nted initiative
in the Charter but if there was going to be referendum, there should
be some financial protections for the City. lie stated that there is
an automatic referendum each election and if there is going to be a
referendum process, the people using it should have to file a bond
which would assure that this process was not used as a weapon against
the Council. Mr. Meardon stated that if a person had a strong reason
to file a referendum petition, he should post bond and if the
position did not get a 408 or greater vote, the person should forfeit
the bond. Mr. Meardon further stated that he was concerned about the
cost of the referendum process, both the cost of an election, and
the hidden costs.
A Mr. Baldus stated that there was no evidence that the referendum process
has been used to harrass cities. He further stated that the re-
quirement of posting a bond would mean that only people who could
afford to post the bond or to lose the money could use the referendum
procefure. Mr. Baldus further stated that there were other ways of
assuming that referendum would not be used to harrass the city. Mr.
Ringgenberg moved to leave initiative and negative initiative only,
thus not having referendum. Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion
1 failed one for and seven against with Mr. Corrigan voting for.
Discussion next turned to Section 8.01 of Draft #3, and consideration
of what areas should be subject to initiative and referendum. Mr.
Baldus stated that the legal interpretation of initiative in other
states was that it could only be a positive matter and the only way
to adopt a law by initiative that repealed another law was to adopt
a substitute law and have both be on the books. Mr. Baldus stated
that this is an artifical enterprise and is subject to challenge.
Mr. Baldus further stated that if there were to be initiative that
would repeal an ordinance, it should be specified so in the Charter.
The question was raised as to the possibility of a negative initiative
procedure after a referendum has failed at the polls. Mr. Baldus
stated that.this could be resolved by placing a time limit on when an
initiative proceeding could start after the referendum process. Mr.
Corrigan stated that allowing negative initiative would give the voters
two options (1) of going through the referendum process and thus
having to finish the process in 30 days. or (2) of using negative
initiative which would be less expensive. Mr. Baldus stated that
negative initiative was needed for ordinances that were passed
several years ago, and has since become unpopular, and the Council will
not repeal the ordinance. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that this would not
be a problem because the representative process would take care of
these issues. Mrs. Cain moved that the provision in Section 8,01 that
t -, "; 3
Charter Minutes
May 26, 1973
HE
allowed initiative to repeal an ordinance be deleted. Mr. Ringgenberg
seconded, and the motion was defeated two for and six against with
Cain and Ringgenberg voting for.
Mr. Baldus stated that the Charter should protect contract rights and
private property rights that arise out of reliance on an ordinance
which is later repealed by negative initiative. Mr. Corrigan stated
that this provision should be carefully worded to assure that it is not
unfairly used by people. Mr. Meardon stated that the provision should
be written so that it would not make or destroy any property or
contract rights. Mr. Baldus moved that there be a section in the
Charter which provided that no repealing initiative would affect
existing contract or property rights. Mr. Corrigan seconded, and the
motion passed seven to one with Mrs. Cain voting against.
Discussion was next held on placing a limit on how soon after the
approval of the voters of a referred ordinance there could be negative
initiative. The Committee felt that since two years was used else-
where in this Article, it should be kept consistent. Mr. Baldus moved
that the Charter not allow a repealing initiative for two years after
the approval of a ordinance which had been approved by the voters in
a referendum process. Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
Discussion was next held on what actions should be subject to referen-
dum. Mr. Baldus stated that this area has been the subject of a lot
of litigation and the courts have generally ruled that legislative
matters are subject but administrative and executive matters are not.
Air. Baldus stated that the best definition of what should be subject
to referendum is "any action of Council that is of a permanent nature."
Mr. Meardon stated that he favored a narrower range of items subject
to referendum because if there was a broad interpretation in issues
like urban renewal numerous referendum could be held. Mr. Meardon
asked if there was a way of dealing with referendum using the resolu-
tion of necessity concept, with the orginal decision dealing with
the desirability or necessity of 'a project being subject to referendum,
but the steps taken to implement that project not being subject.
Mr. Baldus stated that he has had an individual go through the statutes
of ten states on referendum and the subject matter has been defined
as legislative, but there has been little meaning given to legislative,
other than permanency. Mr. Baldus stated that Section 16 page 55 of
McQuillan gives the following test of what is legislative and this
could be put into the commentary. "whether the proposition is one to
make new law or execute law already in existence. The power to be
exercised is legislative in its nature if it prescribes a new policy
or plan wheras it is administrative in its nature if it merely
pursues a plan already adopted by the legislative body itself or some
superior power. Similarly an act or resolution constituting a declara-
tion of public purpose and making provision for ways and means of its
ENT
pa.,•c
k cllart..er Minutes
May 26, 1973
I
accomplishment is generally legislative as distinguished by an act
or resolution that merely carries out the policy or purpose
declared by the legislative body." The Committee agreed that this
should be the distinction made between acts that are subject to referen-
dum and acts that are not. Mr. Baldus moved that the definition
of ordinance in the Article on referendum be defined as it is in State
law with the statement that it should be broadly construed and that the
commentary should provide the McQuillan guide for interpretation.
Mrs. Davidsen seconded. Mr. Meardon stated that the McQuillan guide
should be in the Charter itself and the motion was withdrawn with
Mr. Baldus agreeing to draft such a provision.
The meeting was adjourned for lunch at 12:40 P.M.
Chairman Meardon called the meeting back in order at 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Meardon read the Preamble subcommittee's draft of a statement of
principles. Mr. Ringgenberg made one addition and Mr. Meardon stated
that he would prepare a draft for Committee review.
Mr. Corrigan stated that the commentary should say that initiative
and referendum are procedures designed to see that the will of the
people is carried out and that they should not be used for harrassment.
Mr. Baldus moved that ordinances dealing with the letting of contracts
be added to the list of actions excluded from initiative and referen-
dum. The committee agreed to this change.
Mr. Baldus presented the Committee with a definition of what is
subject to initiative and referendum. After several revisions,
Mrs. Davidsen moved that the definition of what was subject to
referendum should read. "Within this Article 'ordinance' means all
legislative actions, however designated, which (1) are of a
permanent rather than a temporary charter, and (2) include a pro-
position making a new law, policy, or plan, as opposed to one provid-
ing for the execution of a law policy or plan already enacted by
Council. The term 'ordinance' should be construed and interpreted
to favor a broad initiative and referendum power for the voter."
Mr. Corrigan seconded. Specifically left out of the definition was
the reference to laws of a general nature, because this could create
litigation as to whether an action or given action has a general
effect on the City. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ringgenberg
asked if this definition could be construed in such a way that there
would be three referendums, one for the adoption of the policy, one
for the plan, and one for the law. Mr. Baldus stated that thie would
not be so because it could be argued that all secondary action would
be administrative action.
BE
page 5
Charter Afinutes
May 26, 1973
E Et'
Section 8.02 dealing with the commencement of Proceedings, and the
affidavit was accepted as written.
Section 8.03, Petition; Revocation of Signatures was changed to
clarify that the circulation ofr lferendum ordinance,canddmust begin petitions
before the final action by
leted in 30 days.
comp
question of whether the
Discussion turned to Section 8.05 and the
effect of an Ordinance should be supended in a referendum procedure,
and if so when. Mr. Corrigan moved that there be no suspension of the the effect of an ordinance before the.referendum rational ofd this
ordinance was repealed. Mrs. Cain seconded, The
notion overly costlyttoothescitytand that rtherprocedurecwould not
ld
be used overly
harrass the City. Mr. Baldus stated that if there would
not be any suspension of the effect of an ordinance the Charter
should haveof theveffectaofnantordinance passedmunanimously. have
a
Corrigan moved that there be a provision in the Charter (like the one
used in the State of Oklahoma) which specified that Ptheerre would Cain
no suspension of effect until the ordinance was rep_
seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Meardon stated that he favored requiring individuals filing a
referendum petition to file a bond to cover the cost of a special
election if their proposal fails to get at least 40% of the votes
cast. ue stated that there is already a referendum every w
when you elect the Council and the referendum can be a harrass°
g
ment to the City. Mr. Meardon continued that he didwant to prevent
genuine issues from coming up, but he did want to prevent
from being misused. Mr. Meardon statteainsttharrassment of. Mr. Meardon the number
required would not protect the City g
offered the alternative that the petitioners file a bond only if they
wanted a special election. Mr. Baldus stated that there were already
protections against having too many special elections because a
referendum election will take place in a regularlly scheduled fall
election unless the Council choses to hold a special election.
event a Council
from further stated ushing people around, be
hat there owould be some
from arbitrarily pushing P P posted,
question of the constitutionality of requiring a bond to be p o
and that the requiring of a bond would be iscrimination by for
economic background. Mr. Charter but a bond not be put in the Charter butrocedureeiso being aabused dinh Iowa
f
history proves that the referendum p
City, then an amendment should be made to the Charter to include
a provision requiring a bond. Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion
carried six for and two against with Meardon and DeCounter voting
against.
Y,
page 6
Charter Committee
May 26, 1973
Discussion was held on a provision requiring that a proposed ex-
penditure of money by initiative not go into effect until a new
budget went into effect. Comments were made that this provision
would be too confusing, could be construed to delay any initiative,
and was attempting to write into law something that could not be
written into law. Mr. Baldus moved that this provision be deleted,
Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that a provision be included in the Charter giving
Council the power to submit any subject to a binding vote of the
people provided this does not interfere with initiative and referen-
dum. Mr. Corrigan seconded and the Committee decided to defer this
matter until the specific language of the proposal was brought in.
Mr. Ringgenberg moved that Section 8.08 which prohibited the Council
from establishing any stricter conditions or requirements for
initiative and referendum be approved. Mr. Corrigan seconded and
the motion passed unanimously.
Discussion was held on the Preamble as submitted by the sub-
committee on the Preamble. After making certain additions, the
Committee accepted the Preamble. Mr. Baldus moved that the title
be Preamble rather than the Statement of Principles. Mr. DeCounter
seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Meardon announced that he was arranging a meeting with the
County Auditor either Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon. He stated
that Mr. Rosenstein would contact the Committee members to
inform them of the specific place.
Mr. Meardon stated that if the Committee wanted the Charter to
holdover the three Councilmembers whose terms do not expire, it
should request from the City Attorney an opinion on whether this
could legally be done. Mrs. Cain moved that the three Council -
members not be held over but rather the seven member Council be
elected at the first City election under the Home Rule Charter.
Mrs. Davidsen seconded. Mr. Meardon asked if there were any members
who had anything to say about the desirability of holding over the
members. Mrs. Davidson stated that the Charter would be accused of
holding over vestiges from the past. Mr. Corrigan stated that the
Charter would not be discounting continuity because these Council -
members could seek election under the Charter. Mr. Meardon stated
that anyone can run under the Charter and since the Charter is a
separate form of government, the Charter should be drawn as a
separate form. The question was called and the motion carried un-
animously. The Committee agreed that it was not necessary to seek
a legal opinion on whether a full Council could be elected.
U
pakje 7
Charter Minutes
el May 26, 1973
LAI-
cgyy� ', = ai VMli3sx <??
'u��.� N IMa� _
Mr. Ringgenberg moved that the definition of Person be accepted.
Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
The Committee agreed to include in the Charter the definition of
ordinance used in State law except for the Article on initiative
and referendum.
Mr. Baldus moved that the City Code of Iowa's savings clause be used
in the Charter. Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Corrigan moved that Section 2.01 should provide for a City
Council of seven members, elected at- large. The motion died for a
lack of a second. Mr. Corrigan stated that he was not interested in
offering this proposition as an alternative on the ballot.
With Mr: Corrigan dissenting, the Committee agreed to use Section 2.01
(a) (alternative A) of the MOdel Charter as a model for Section 2.01.
Mr. Ringgenberg moved that Section 2.02 which provides for the division
of the City into three districts by Council be accepted. Mr. Baldus
seconded. Mr. Baldus moved to amend this section to require that the
districts be of substantially equal population, rather than simply
be based on population. Mr. Baldus stated that, with the change
of attitude on the Supreme Courts, this may not be a requirement
in the future unless it is written into the Charter. The motion to
amend died for lack of a second. The motion to accept the provision
carried seven to one with Mr. Corrigan voting against the motion.
Mr. Ringgenberg moved that Section 2.03, Eligibility read "to be
eligible to be elected to and retain a Council position a person must
be a qualified voter of the City and if running or serving in a
Council District, a resident of that Council District. Mr. Knight
seconded and the motion carried six to two with Baldus and Corrigan
voting against. Mr. Baldus stated that the Charter.should not
require a person holding a district seat to live in that district.
Mrs. Cain moved that Section 2.01 (c) (alternative A) of the Model
City Charter, which provides the terms of the Councilmembers, be
modified and used. Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion passed
seven to one with Mr. Corrigan voting against the motion.
Mrs. Davidsen moved that the division into districts as provided in
Section 2.02 be required to be substantially equal. Mr. Baldus
seconded and the motion carried five for, two against, and abstention
UL with DeCounter, Baldus, Davidsen, Knight, and Meardon voting for,
AP Cain and P.inggenberg voting against, and Corrigan abstaining.
L
page 8
C charter Minutes
:::y 26, 1973
H�: w
;r. Baldus moved that Section 3.01, which provides the nomination
prcce ^ °, be accepted. Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion carried
seven to one with Mr. Corrigan voting against.
Mrs. Cain moved that Section 3.02, which requires a primary election
if there are more than two candidates for a Council District be
adopted. Mr. Ringgenberg seconded and the motion carried seven to
one with Mr. Corrigan voting against.
Mr. DeCounter moved the adoption of Section 3.03 which provides that
the Council Districts be voted on using the place system and that the
at -large elections use the present method. Mr. Ringgenberg seconded
and the motion carried seven to one with Mr. Corrigan voting against.
Discussion was held on whether to include in the Charter the amending
process as provided in the City Code of Iowa. Concern was expressed
that State law might be changed, thus requiring a Charter change.
However, it was felt that this should go in the Charter since such
importance was placed on the part that the Charter could be amended
easily. Mrs. Cain moved that Section 8.01 be included. Mr.
Corrigan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Baldus announced that Mr. Martineau could not meet with the
Committee Friday night, but could make it at 9:00 a.m. Saturday,
June 2, 1973. The Committee agreed to meet then.
Mr. Meardon stated that he would be.asking Council for a special
meeting in which the Committee could make its report.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
W]
.. ........ .. ..: .. ....,.,. . „�:.,�;u.- m�Fva....umzs_ _.� �t..�r��,s=.s• .... ��kS�a 'sti�ivati`.'.��a�.,"�'� -'fa^d - �4eY...w -.i_yx � �.,�r
PI l N LYV ES
is
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
bL4Y 29, 1973
; =4BEV3 vRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, Baldus, Welt, Knight,
. Davidsen, DeCounter
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ringgenberg
STAFF PRESENT: Rosenstein
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 8:00.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the minutes of May 22, 1973 be approved as
corrected. Mr. Baldus seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Meardon distributed copies of a letter from Councilman
Nickerson concerning the sections of the Charter which the
Committee submitted to the Council and the City Manager.
The Committee next went over the working draft of the Charter.
The Committee agreed to accept the definition section with the addition
of the definition "City” meaning the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
The Committee agreed to have the definition section follow the
Preamble, and not be designated as an separate Article.
Mr. Baldus moved that Section 1.04, Savings Clause, read as
follows. "If any provision of this Charter, or the application
of this Charter to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of this Charter which can be given effect." Mr. Knight seconded,
and.the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that Section 2.01 Composition, read as follows,
"There shall be a City Council of seven members, four, to be
known as Councilmembers at- large, shall be nominated and elected
by the qualified voters of the City at- large. The other thrae
shall be known as District Councilmembers; they shall be nominated
by the qualified voters of their respective districts as provided
by Article III, and one shall be elected from each Council District
by the qualified voters of the City at- large." Mr. Corrigan
seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was held on whether the division into Council Districts
by Council should be subject to referendum. Mrs. Davidsen stated
that it should not since it was a technical decision, and it was
unlikely that any division would satisfy many people. Mr. Baldus
stated that it should be subject to the referendum procedure
because it was very political and a bad division could split a
group in half. This question was deferred.
..-
t
i
MINUTES
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
MAY 29, 19'13
YAvE 2
Discussion was held on whether the date of the.election of the
Mayor and the length of term should be specified. Mrs. Cain
wanted to clarify that the Mayor should be elected at the first
Council meeting of a newly elected Council. This question was
deferred.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the provision that the Mayor give a State
of the City message be deleted and it be recommended in the
commentary.
Mr. Corrigan stated that the Charter Section on the Mayor was very
broad except for this provision and that being this specific did not
fit in the Section. The motion died for lack of a second.
Discussion was held on whether it was necessary to state that the
Mayor was the chief executive officer. Mr. Rosenstein was
directed to research the question of whether the Charter must
provide that there be a chief executive officer who would sign
the official papers of the City.
Mr. Rosenstein questioned whether the Charter Committee wanted to
prohibit a Council - member from being a County employee. Mr.
Corrigan stated that it would be enough to exclude County Officials.
Mr. Baldus moved that Section 2.12 (a) read, "A Councilmember may
not hold any other City ice or e a City employee or County
official..." Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that Section 3.01, Nomination, be changed to read
"a qualified voter.... City C er a petition requesting that his
or her name be placed..." Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion
passed unanimously.
The Committee agreed that Section 4.01 should provide that the
City Manager was the "chie a inistrative officer of the City"
rather than the "administrative head of the City." This was simply
a grammatical change.
Discussion was held on the correct method of writing Section 4.04,
Duties of City Manager. The Committee agreed to delete the phrase
"the duties of the City Manager shall include" and simply list the
duties. The correct drafting of this provision was referred to the
sub - committee on the City Manager.
W]
✓' i
}raj
M L N1'TES
IOWA CITY CHARITER COMMTTTFP.
MAY 29, 19'73
PACE 3
Discussion was held on Section 4.05 which prohibits the City
Manager from participating in t e election of the City Council,
except for voting. Mr. Corrigan moved that this Section be deleted.
Mr. Welt seconded. Mr. Corrigan stated that this was unnecessary
because no professional City Manager would ethically participate
in the election of the City Council. Mr. Meardon stated that a
prohibition such as this was sound policy, both to insure that
a City Manager did not participate, and to protect the City Manager
from being forced by the Council to participate. Mr. Meardon
stated that "participate" has a very broad meaning. After
discussion Mr. Welt removed his second and the motion was withdrawn
for lack of a second. Mr. Corrigan moved to delete the provision
that a City Manager's violation of Section 4.05 be a cause for
removal from office by the courts. It was felt that since
"participate" was so broad, it might be unwise to have this
provision. Mr. Saluds seconded the motion and the motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Rosenstein was directed to research whether it was advisable
to have a provision defining special elections.
Section 6.02 was changed to read "the Council shall also prescribe
by Ordinance procedures requiring immediate'.y before and after each
regular, special, primary, or run -off election, the disclosure of
the amount, source, and form of all contributions received by, and
all expenditures made by (1) each candidate for election to Council,
and (2) any and all other persons for the purpuse of aiding or securing
the candidate's nomination or election."
Section 6.03, Violations, was changed to read "... and (2), when
appropriate,' conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right
to serve on Council if he or she is elected." This change was made
to insure that this power could not be abused, and that removal
could only pertain to violations of the ordinances established
in accordance with Article VI, in such cases where it would be
appropriate to revocate the right to serve.
Discussion was held on Section 8.01 Charter amendments and whether
to rewrite these provision�s.�No revision was made at this time.
The Charter Committee agreed that Section 8.02, Charter Review
in
Commission read "the Council, using the procedures prescribed
Article V, shall establish a Charter Review Commission at least
once every ten (10) years following the effective date•of this
(9) members,
Charter. The Commission, consisting of at least nine
twelve months,
shall review the existing Charter and may, within
that it deems fit. The Council
recommend any Charter amendments
shall submit such amendments to the voters and an amendment becomes
AOL
qP
effective when approved by a majority of those voting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30.
MAIM
MINUTES
10INIA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
',U1Y 30, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Welt, Davidsen, Baldus,
Cbrrigan, Ringgenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Decounter, Knight
STAFF PRESENT: Rosenstein.
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:10p.m.
Mr. Meardon stated that five members of the Charter Committee had
met with Delores Rogers, County Auditor, to discuss what problems
would be encountered in the reprecincting of the City and the
districting of the City for the Council election this fall under this
Charter, if adopted. Mr. Meardon stated that Mrs. Rogers had given
the group a warm welcome and answered all the Committee's questions.
She discussed the difficulties of reprecincting, explaining that it
would cost the City about $8,000 and would take her at least 2 -1/2
weeks to complete her work after the City Council submitted the precinct
lines. She stated that she would work hard to accomplish the desires
of the City Council and, while the time schedule would be tight, she
did not say it could not be done. Furthermore, she stated that after
the special election on the Charter, the Council would have to agree
to unlock the voting machines for the school board election. Mrs.
Rogers stated that the cost of an election was $8,000 plus
approximately $500 for any additional proposition submitted at the
same time. Mr. Baldus stated that one way of giving the auditor
two weeks extra time was to omit a primary election this year and
to rely on a run -off election. Mrs. Cain stated that this would not
be workable, given the primary election held in the District only.
Mr. Meardon raised the question of moving the election on the Charter
forward to sometime in August.
Mrs. Davidsen stated that this wouldn't be desirable because it would
disinfranchise most students and faculty members. The Committee
agreed that the only way of utilizing the three districts in next falls
election was to reprecinct the City. The Committee also agreed that
the key to being able to do this was full cooperation by the City Council
because the Council would have to authorize the process of redrawing
precinct lines and getting approval from the Secretary of State before
the special election on the Charter. This would include adopting these
by ordinance, to be effective if the Charter wins approval. After the
election the council would have to submit the new precincts and districts
to the County Auditor so that she would have a maximum amount of time
to do her work.
KI
x
7
pay 0.
n :'harLer Minutes
a „ay W , 197.i
Mr. Rosenstein made a presentation on the precinct map that he had
dra,gil under the Committee's direction. Mr. Rosenstein stated that
this map was based upon population and the division of the City into
a pie. The map utilizes 14 of the City's present precincts and makes
changes in 11 of them, reducing this number into ten. Thus, the map
is composed of 24 precincts divided into three districts of 8 precincts
each.
Mr. Meardon stated that since the submission of the Charter, the re-
precincting, and the districting was up to the Council, the Committee
should quickly complete its work and then urge the council-to take
the necessary steps. Mr. Baldus moved that the Committee recommend
that prior to the special election on the Charter, the Council inact
an ordinance which adopts the precincts and would go into effect if the
Charter is adopted. Mrs. Davidsen seconded and the motion carried
unanimously. The committee agreed that since one district representa-
tive would set a two year term at the first election under the Charter,
the decision should be made by a drawing of lots. Three pieces of
paper were prepared, each stating the color of one of the districts on
the map. it was agreed that the district that was drawn would be
Council District B, thus would receive a two year term the first
election. Mrs. Cain drew the lot with the green district, which en-
compasses the northeast side of Iowa City. Mr. Corrigan assigned the
title Council District A to the brown district which encompasses the
southeast side of Iowa City and Council District C to the blue
district which encompasses the west side of Iowa City. These last
assignments were arbitrary. It was agreed by the Committee that the
public should be made fully aware of the district boundaries but that
these should not be voted on by the voters.
Mr. Baldus announced that Mr. Martineau would meet with the Charter
Committee at 9:00 a.m. June 2, 1973, in the Conference Room of the
Civic Center.
Mr. Baldus presented the Charter Committee with several comments from
Mr. Martineau. In Section 7.03 (c) the Committee agreed to prohibit
suspension of effect of an ordinance with negative initiative, the
inclusion of the provision was for clarity only. Section 7.04 (c) was
changed to read so that the provision did not confere jurisdiction but
only established the right to court review. In Section 7.05 the
suggestion was made to confere upon the City Clerk the duty of submit-
ting a proposed or referred ordinance to the voters rather than place
the duty on the City Council. Mr. Rosenstein asked whether the City
Clerk legally had the power to submit items to a vote of the people.
This subject was deferred.
C
F
Minutes
IUr,J
>everal minor clarifications to the wording of various sections were
reco -iended and adopted.
cussion initiative voteewYiohsrepeals7anbexisting ordinancfeain`wholerordin ection
Dis part does not effect any obligation entered into by the City or its
agency with a private person which was undertaken The purpose-
ordinance and during the time it was in effect." e p
this provision is to assure contractors that they can enter into a
contract with the City and will not lose on account of negative
initiative. Legally this provision is unnecessary because it is already
covered by law.
Mr. Meardon proposed that the Charter exclodicerpower , t including
d
referendum anything that pertains to the p but not
zoning, building codes, median strips, traffic control,
including resolutions of necessity on certain items. enough signatures
stated that anyone with money and a desire can get and that there are
to have an initiative or referenda tiseaasubject, not be voted on
certain subjects that rely on exp
by the people. He stated that he was particularly worried about zon° processes to
ing because the time involved imonetarilyfandtpsychologically ,`on the
and would be very costly, both
parties involved. Mr. Baldus stated that if anything hepetaining to the
city did would
police power was prohibited then almost everything
not be subject to initiative or referendum. Mr. Baldus stated that
there was already a tight definition of what was subject to referendum
Mr. Baldus continued that major zoning decisions, like
ectctopreferendum,
plan, greatly affect people's lives and should be subj
but that requests for rezoning, should not be and are not under the
present definition of referendum. Mr. Corrigan stated that it wasug o
easy to construe a police power to be any y processes.
Welt
gested listing exclusions to initiative and referendum p
Mr. Riggenberg suggested the Committee list what is subject to initia�
tive and referendum and leave room for additions by Charter amendment.
This subject was deferred for further thought.
Mrs. Davidsen and Mr. Welt both announced that they were leaving town
temporarily and would miss several Charter Committee meetings. Mrs.
Davidsen stated she opposed having the division into hCou lil Districts
subject to referendum and excluding measures using Power
from initiative and referendum, but she favored excluding zoning from
initiative and referendum.
The meeting was adjourned.
5
d
M i tVU1 bo
IOWA CITY CHARTER
JUNE: 2, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
GUEST PRESENT:
D3
COMMITTEE
o
Meardon, Cain, Ringgenberg, Baldus, Corrigan
Knight, Welt, Davidsen, Be Counter.
Rosenstein
Robert Martineau
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M.
Mr. Martineau stated that the Charter is an excellent piece of
work and everything the Committee is doing with the Charter
is proper under the City Code of Iowa. He stated that everything
included in the Charter would, in his opinion, be held to be legal.
Mr. Martineau stated that the Committee is doing things that are
a little bit different, but that was the idea behind a Home Rulu
Charter in the City Code of Iowa. Mr. Corrigan asked if there
was anything that the Charter doesn't do that needs to be done.
Mr. Martineau replied that he didn't think so but he had not
U hl since he has been receiving
studied this question that t oroug y
the Charter in sections.
Discussion was held on initiative and referendum. Mr. Martineau
questioned why the Charter limited the filing of a referendum
petition to thirty days after final passage. Mrs. Cain stated
that negative initiative would allow more flexibility since the
initiative could repeal an ordinance. Mr. Martineau stated that it
should be made clear that initiative could repeal an ordinance since
traditionally it could not. The Committee agreed that Section 7.01
(a) clearly allowed initiative which repealed an ordinance, but
that the comments should state that the subject matter of initiative
and referendum are not mutually exclusive.
Mr. Martineau stated that the only universal protection from
initiative and referendum was the exclusion of appropriations
and the other exclusions varied according to the community.
Discussion was held on whether the division into Council Districts
should be subject to referendum. Mr. Martineau stated that as the
Charter now reads it would be subject. Mr. Rosenstein stated that
Mrs. Davidsen had expressed opposition to the division into
districts being subject to referendum because 1) it was to a
large degree a technical decision and 2) it was the type of
decision no one likes. Mr. Corrigan stated that there might come
a time when the Council would realign the districts and there has
to be a protection for the voters. Mr. Baldus stated that this is
MINI" -
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTB6
:2, 1973
PACE ?
a political question, one which the voters are competent to respond
to.
Mr. Meardon raised the question of requiring the posting of a bond
if the petitioners wanted an election other than at the regular
fall election. Mr. Baldus stated that the Charter protects against
the cost of having special elections by providing that the election
will be held at the regular City election, unless Council decides
to have a special election. Mr. Corrigan stated that the basic
problem is one of allowing for proper motives that are designed to
protect the Citizens and prohibiting the use of the procedures to
harass or to gain profit. Mr. Meardon stated that he did not like
the idea of letting Council determine when a referendum was to be
held because some issuses need to be resolved immediately. Mr. Baldus
stated that if Council choses to delay the referendum, it can,
rather than give the citizens a right to impose an $8000 burden on
the City. Mr. Meardon stated that if someone wants to pay for the
election, the Charter should allow them to pay for it and have
special election. The Committee agreed to state in the comments that
if someone wants to pay for a special election on a referendum
issue, the Council should accept the money and call a special
election.
Mr. Baldus stated that the_Committeejhas attempted to anticipate
everything, that this is not possible, and furthermore that this has
hurt the proposal. Mr. Baldus stated that no other city or state
PA has put as many protections in as has the Charter Committee.
Mr. Baldus stated that the commentary should give some guidelines
on what is administrative and what is legislative: He stated that
the making of a new law, plan, or policy should include the idea of
making substantial amendments which should be judged by the
importance of an issue. Mr. Martineau stated that this was trying
to write in something which there is no objective way of describing.
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that a democracy cannot protect itself
from mistakes and that it has to permit mistakes. He stated this
would be trying to protect oneself from oneself. Mr. Corrigan stated
he favored leaving initiative wide open, not having negative
initiative, and spelling out what should be subject to referendum,
allowing for amendments which add subjects. Mr. Meardoh stated that
if the Charter was going to accept the principle of initiative and
referendum, the Charter must make provisions for it. He stated
that initiative and referendum was the ultimate citizen participation.
Mrs. Cain stated that you have to have faith in the electorate and
if initiative and referendum is abused, it can be taken out of the
Charter. She stated it may go through a period of abuse once
adopted, but this should level out. Mr. Rosenstein stated that
traditionally once something is put in a Charter it is very difficult
AMINk to get it out.
Imo:
A;
��s
F
IE
mINU'PES
1 .11, C;'PY' CHARTER COMMITTEE
JUNE: 2, 1973
PACE 3
mi. Martineau stated that he was bothered by specifying an exact
number of signatures that are required for the initiative or
referendum petition because it doesn't work well with a living
document. He stated that you never know when there will be
a population change and relying on amendments to the Charter is
not d good idea, Mr. Baldus stated that a specific number
simplified the processes.
Mr. Martineau stated that Section 2.08 (c) needed to be more clear
as to who appointed the City Attorney. Mr. Meardon stated that the
real issue was whether the Council or the Manager should appoint
the City Attoreny. Mr. Ringgenberg questioned whether this needed
to be in the Charter. Mr. Martineau stated it did because of
the influence the City Attorney has on City government.
Discussion was held on Section 2.08 (e) and whether the Council
should provide the metho acTn3 amount of the compensation of City
officials and employees. The Committee wanted Council to set
broad figures but not to set each individual employee's salary.
The Committee agreed to have this Section provide for Council to
fix the salaries of the people it appoints, and provide for the
method of compensation of other City employees.
The Committee agreed to delete the pharas "without notice" in
Section 4.04 (h) which would allow the City Manager to cause the
affairs of any department, etc. to be investigated with or without
notice.
The Committee agreed to 'move the statement that the Manager is the
Chief administrative officer from the Appointment Section to the
Duties Section.
The Committee agreed to remove the requirement that a Council candidate
be a qualified voter and instead to require a candidate to be a voter.
Discussion was held on the presentation of the Charter to Council.
Mt. Meardon stated he would talk with the Council and determine how
they wanted the Charter presented. tie stated that it would be
best to have an special meeting with Council in an informal session.
He further stated that the formal presentation would come later.
Mrs. Cain stated that she would want the Charter Committee to have
a chance to make any necessary wording changes after informal
presentation to Council. The Committee agreed that it would like
the chance, but that the draft would be submitted as the final
draft. The Committee further agreed to submit the map and Ordinance
with the final draft and directed Mr. Rosenstein to finish preparation
of the Ordinance.
The meeting was adjourned.
4
U
M
Iowa City Charter Committee
June 5, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Ii1
MINUTES
Meardon, Cain, DeCounter, Baldus,
Corrigan, Ringgenberg, Knight
Welt, Davidsen
Rosenstein
Chaiman Meardon called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Meardon stated that he discussed with the City Council the
process of submitting the Charter and requested a meeting between
the City Council and the Charter Committee for the presentation.
tie stated that he made it clear that the purpose of the meeting
was not to negotiate on the Charter, but rather to discuss back and
forth the thinking that went into the proposal. Mr. Meardon stated
that the meeting was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 13,
1973 and that the Charter Committee should meet today and tomorrow
to finalize the Charter, and then present it to Council so they can
review it in detail before the June 13 meeting. He further stated
that the Committee should present a copy to the City Attorney to see
if he felt there were any legal problems with the Charter. Mr.
Meardon continued, stating that after the meeting with the City Council
the Committee should formally present the Charter to Council. Mr.
Meardon concluded that he has discussed with the City Council Chapter
49.11 of the Code of Iowa which provides that when precincts are
changed there must be three weeks of publication and then a thirty
day period before the election, but that this did not have anything
to do with the Charter Committee because if the Committee finishes
the Charter and submits it to the City Council, it then becomes
City Council's choice as to when the Charter is submitted to the
voters. Mr. Baldus stated that the Committee would not be able to
get the legal opinion from Mr. Martineau until Monday, June 11, 1973
and that the Charter should not be submitted to the City Council
before that time. Mr. Baldus continued that he did not want to get
another legal opinion on the Charter before the Charter consultant's
opinion was in. Mr. Meardon stated that it would not be fair to the
City Council to have them come to the meeting without having been able
to study the Charter. Mr. Meardon stated that he has talked with the
City Attorney several times and there have been no legal objections
voiced yet. Mr. Meardon stated that it was important to get something
to Council as soon as possible.
-
i�'?:i i `. � n .1 A.s �° Nr�i�,..a±` . r. `�` a•,. ^`•�l`:'�a� a�t�s „'�4�'":� ,r .
P
Charter Minutes
,111110 `.i, 1973
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that at the Citizens for a Better Iowa City
meeting the group expressed concern about initiative and referendum.
Mr. Meardon responded that a lot of the concern about the processes
was L•Ccause people do not understand them. Mrs. Cain stated she
has talked with people who were concerned about the processes
who understand them.
The Committee next went over the draft of the Charter in detail
making numerous minor changes.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the phase "and chief executive officer"
be removed from the section on the Mayor. Mrs. Cain seconded
and the Committee agreed to the change.
The Committee agreed that it would not be necessary to list the
powers of the Mayor protem because they would be the same as the
Mayor's when the Mayor is absent.
Mrs. Cain moved to delete section 4.03 which provided methods of
appointing the acting City Manager. Mr. Ringgenberg seconded and
the motion carried six for and two against with Meardon and Knight
voting against. Mr. Baldus moved that Section 4.03, Absence;
disability of City Manager read, "to per orm is or her duties
during a temporary absence or disability, the City Manager may
designate a qualified City employee as acting City Manager. If
the City Manager fails to make such designation, the Council may
appoint a qualified City employee to perform the duties of the
I City Manager until he or she returns." Mr. Ringgenberg seconded
and the motion carried six for and two against with Meardon and
Knight voting against. Discussion was next held on the Article
on initiative and referendum.
Mrs. Cain stated that the declaration of power should say that the
qualified voters have the process of initiative and referendum since
t ey are the ones who will be voting on the questions.
Mrs. Cain moved to eliminate the allowance.of initiative that repeals
ordinances. Mr. Ringqenberg seconded. Mrs. Cain stated that if the
Committee wanted negative initiative, it should just remove the time
limit on when a referendum petition could be filed, thus adhering to
the traditional legal interpretation that initiative is a positive
proposal and referendum is a proposal to repeal. Mr. Baldus stated
that part of the concept of referendum was that it was a prompt vote
on the subject. He further stated that allowing initiative to
repeal eliminates litigation on whether a substitute law is a repealing
law. Mr. Meardon stated that removing initiative that repeals an
ordinance would kill the use of initiative because it would be unusual
f,
E
Iaye 3
i'harPer minutes
,Iunr S, 1973
to havr an initiative which does not in effect repeal something.
Mr. Baldus stated that he would accept the idea of not having an
initiative with the purpose to repeal an ordinance if the time limit
on referendum was removed and if there could be a referendum on a
whole or a part of an ordinance. The question was called and the motion
gassed four for and three against with Cain, Corrigan, Ringgenberg,
and Baldus voting for, and Knight, Meardon, and DeCounter voting
against. The Committee agreed to drop the limit for filing a
referendum petition and to allow referendum to seek repeal of an
ordinance in whole or in part.
Discussion was next held on what could be subject to initiative and
referendum. Mr. Corrigan stated that if zoning was allowed to be
subject to referendum much of the Charter's support would be lost.
Mr. Baldus stated that zoning law traditionally has been allowed as a
subject for referendum. Mr. Baldus further stated that if a Council
can't sell its positions to the public and gain support for them,
then the Council should re- evaluate their decisions. Mr. Baldus
moved that the following definition of what is subject to initiative
and referendum be adopted. "Within this article, 'ordinance' means
ill measures of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a)
are of a permanent rather than temporary character and (b) include a
proposition enacting, amending, or repealing a new or existing law,
policy or plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution of
a law, policy or plan already enacted by Council." Mr. Corrigan
seconded. Mr. Rosenstein stated that this was an extremely broad
definition, especially with the inclusion of the word "amending."
Ile stated that this would make a project subject to numerous
referendums because most projects are amended many times. Mr. Baldus
stated that nothing in the Charter except for initiative and referendum
deals with the responsiveness of government. The question was called
and the motion carried five for, none against and two abstaining,
Knight and Ringgenberg.
Mrs. Cain moved that Section 8.02, Charter Review Commission read that
the Council may submi—t-r-e-c—o-nu-n-e-n-cTed amendments of the Charter Review
Commission to the voters, rather than requiring the Council to submit
them. Mr. DeCounter seconded, Mr. Rosenstein stated that it was
important to periodically review a Charter because traditionally
Charters are amended in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Baldus stated that
a Charter Review Commission should be legally independent from Council.
The question was called and the motion was defeated one for and five.
All against with Mrs. Cain voting for and Mr. Corrigan being absent.
,. o ,, dl. ;':; J, �S i.r�C�i...:S.#t"'`" '�X n"Ju" 1a�'dal:- ^.i�4D,aF�x". - .•'.�.'` n••�uSR£dva' #1kv ,..
."11'l. in Mlnutos
E
ili::cusa;ion was held on Article 1X, Transitional Provisions, which
Hr. Rosenstein was directed to prepare. Mr. Meardon stated that he
mis concerned about putting in a time schedule of when the Charter
wlnlld yo into effect if adopted. Mr. Rosenstein stated that State
l,aw already provides for everything included in Article IX. Mr.
Baldus moved that Article IX be deleted. Mrs. Cain seconded and
the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned.
i0WA CITY CHARTER
I973
,'d I: Sll tli R: PRL•'SENT:
MEMIAPRR ABSENT:
;:TAFF PRESENT:
i
`.
MINUTES
11
COMMITTEE
Meardon, Baldus, Knight, Ringgenberg, DcCount.cr,
Cain.
Corrigan, Davidson, Welt
Rosenstein
The Committee went through Article VII, Initiative and Referendum
in detail making the necessary grammatical changes.
Discussion was held on whether to prohibit a Council from passing
an ordinance after it is repealed by a referendum election. Presently
the Charter prohibits the Council from doing so for two years after
defeat of the ordinance. Mrs. Cain stated that this prohibition
should not be in the Charter, because a Council may be forward thinking
and this provision could hinder progressive action by the City.
She further stated that politically it would be difficult for a Council
to ignore the negative outcome of a referendum, but if the Council
feels strongly enough about an issue and wants to take the risks of
passing it again, they should have this option. Mr. Baldus stated
that this article has gone to great trouble to prevent games from
being played, and this provision prevents the Council from playing
games. Mr. Baldus stated that if a Council felt an issue important,
it could put it up to a vote of the people and then try to sell the
issue. Mr. Baldus further stated that recent history has shown
that when the Parking Ramp was voted down in a referendum the Council
went ahead with it anyway. Mrs. Cain moved that the provision that
prohibited a Council from passing an ordinance defeated in a referendum
for two years be deleted from the Charter. Mr. Ringgenberg seconded,
and the Committee tied on the motion to delete three to three with
Cain, Ringgenberg, and DeCounter voting for and Meardon, Baldus, and
Knight voting against. The Chairman ruled that this provision would
remain in the Charter for the time being since there was a tie on the
motion to delete.
Mr. Baldus moved that all of Article VII be adopted as written. Mr.
Knight seconded. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that he was concerned about
the definition of ordinance since it was broad and covered so many
things. Mr. Ringgenberg stated that there should be a limit placed on
ordinance so its meaning was the same as State law's. Mr. Baldus
stated that the Charter would be worse off if it relyed on the Codes
definition of ordinance, since it was a law of a general or permanent
nature, and the Courts would end up formulating what that means. Mr.
Ringgenberq stated that ordinance under Iowa law would not include an
plan. Mr. Meardon stated that it was important to include the coverage
of policies and plans. Mr. Rosenstein stated that the inclusion of
amendmenCs to policies or plans would mean that most projects would
be subject to referendum six or seven times since most projects are
�3
3.
.. a: ZSiS+ 'Y 5 Y?..r" OCI Y' f£ 5��.•. vYh. A�Y .t`CdiS3Il:P315�.[�9't- `a•'.e+w. �•SlfN�Y'4E : �n- �. � '.�:sd�t�.Yn%�`�a��a'iM1:i -v'.1+ f�i'3 hv. - �!. i / 1:2H'v'::4,
' Yg t
�' Yyjl
i _2_
amended that often. Mr. Baldus stated that only the amendment, and
not t "hu whole policy or plan, woulr! h^ subject to a rcferendula-
mt. Mi,i.aon stated that if someone showed him something that would
create problems unless it was excluded, he would le for excluding
it. from referendum. Mr. Meardon stated that he has grave feelings
to about protecting the people from themselves. Mr. Meardon stated that
a vote for this motion would be a firm committment to Initiative and
Referendum, although some sections might still change. The question
was called and the motion passed four for, none against, and one
abstention, with Mr. Ringginberg abstaining. Mr. Riggenberg stated
he favored initiative and referendum but opposed this version.
The Chairman called a meeting for Monday night June 11, 1973 at
8:30. This meeting was scheduled for approval of the Tentative
Draft. The Chairman and Mr. Rosenstein will distribute the tentative
draft to the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City
Clerk on June 8, 1973.
The minutes of May 23,26,29,30, and June 2, 1973 were approved as
corrected. These minutes are to be submitted to Council on Friday,
June 8, 1973.
Mr. Baldus moved the final adoption of the map dividing the City
into precincts and Council districts, as corrected, and the submission
of.this Map to Council along with, but separate from, the Charter.
Mr. DeCounter seconded and the motion carried unanimously. (Mrs.
Cain was absent at this time.) Several minor corrections were made
to Articles I through VI. Mr. Baldus moved that Section 8.02 allow
lh(- Charter Review Commission to decide in what form the amendments
should be submitted. Mr. DeCounter seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned.
r]
MINUTES
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
Joint Session Iowa City City Council and the Iowa City Charter Committee
,Tune 14, 1973.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brandt, Nickerson, Connell, White
Czarnecki
CHARTER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Ringgenberg, Corrigan,
Knight, DeCounter,.Welt, Baldus
CHARTER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS ABSENT: Davidsen
OTHERS PRESENT: Wells, Honohan, Stolfus, Rosenstein
GUEST PRESENT: Rev. Welsh,
Mayor Pro -Tem Connell called the meeting to order. Mr. Meardon presented
the Council with Mr. Robert Martineau's legal opinion of the Charter,
and a statement of $400 for Mr. Martineau's services. Mr. Meardon also
presented a statement for $35.00 for research compiled by Mr. Jerry
Coffman, a law student.
There were no comments on the "Preamble."
Mr. Meardon responded that the definition of "ordianance" for the Charter
except for Article VII, was the one taken out of the City Code of Iowa.
Councilman White questioned whether it would be necessary to have a
definition of resolution in the charter. Mr. Meardon responded that it
was not necessary, because there is already a definition of ordinance
in the City Code of Iowa.
Article II. Councilman White asked whether it was necessary.that the
Council appoint the Deputy City Clerk. The City Attorney responded that
he will check on this matter. Councilman White questioned whether the
provision requiring that the appointments and promotions of the City
employees be made according to job related qualifications should read
according to other things besides job related qualifications, such as
the employee's performance. Discussion was held on whether Section 2.11
referred only to measurers or whether it should refer to any matter.
Mr. Meardon stated that would be something that the Charter Committee would
resolve. Councilman White questioned whether it would be necessary to
have an affirmative vote of the majority of the Council on a motion.
Mr. Baldus stated that it was intended that a motion be excluded from
this requirement and that it was only necessary to have a majority of
those present. Councilman Czarnecki raised the question of whether
E
page 2
Charter Minutes
June 14, 1973
H
the proposed Council districts were of substantially equal population.
Mr. Rosenstein replied that the State legislative districts present a
problem in dividing the City into three districts utilizing 24
precinct;. Councilman Czarnecki questioned whether there was a.need
of a definition of resident. Councilman Czarnecki further questioned
whether the Mayor would need to be elected when a vacancy was filled
on the Council or whether the Mayor would be elected in January of
every other year. Discussion was also held on whether there should be
a provision for the election of the Mayor if the Mayor resigns.
Councilman Czarnecki questioned whether a County Official in Section 2.12
point A refers to elected County Officials or to other County employees.
Article III. Councilman Czarnecki stated that it should be clarified in
the C arter how many votes a voter may cast at a given election.
Article IV. City Manager Wells stated that there are many cases where
t e`'City Manager would need to execute a contract after the contract has
been approved by Council. Mr. Wells further stated that the word parti-
cipate in Section 4.05 needed to be defined since it was such a broad
word. Councilman Connell stated that Section 4.03 which provided that
the Council should appoint a qualified City employee to perform the
duties of City Manager if the Manager fails to make such a designation
showed a lack of confidence in the individual hired as Manager. City
Manager Wells questioned whether a City Manager could provide the necessary
and reasonable assistance without having first received authorization
by the Council through the budget, thus Section 4.04 should make some
provision for the budget limitations.
Article V. City Attorney Honohan stated that section 4.03 A which
requ --fired the City Council to adopt uniform rules and procedures for the
operation of all Boards was not clear. Mr. Honohan questioned whether
in Section 5.02 the Charter advise that Council could establish con-
ditions for removal of members for just cause, because there may be an
inconsistency with Chapter 66 of the Code of Iowa. City Attorney Honohan
also questioned whether the language in Section 9.02 requiring broad
representation on all Boards was legal since some Boards required
professional people on them soley.
Article VI. Councilman Hickerson asked whether this provision included
some one aevoting time to a candidates campaign. Mr. Baldus stated that
this was not intended to be so. Councilman White asked whether this
provision would be used this fall if the Charter was adopted. Councilman
Czarnecki replied that this would not be binding on this Council, but
on the first Council under the Charter. City Attorney Honohan stated
that there was pending legislation on disclosure of campaign contribu-
tions and that Chapter 56 of the Code of Iowa covered the limitation
on campaign expenditures.
0
page 3
Charter Minutes
June 14, 1973
E
Article V11. Councilman iiickerson stated that the Initiative and
Re—Teren um procedures was a type of procedures that could trip Iowa
City government. lie stated that he was concerned about the definition
of substance in about not allowing a City Council to make changes to a
proposed Initiative ordinance. Mr. Haldus stated that the definition
of substance was anything more than a technical change in the structure
of the ordinance. Councilman Czarnecki questioned whether the
exclusion for Initiative and Referendum of the appropriation of money
would in effect severely limit the power of Initiative. Councilman
Czarnecki questioned what would be the appropriate time for a citizen
to file a referendum petition on a project in the Capital Improvements
Program. City Attorney Honohan stated that he had not researched the
question of Initiative and Referendum yet, but there were some questions
as to whether these provisions could be in a Charter in the State of
Iowa. tie stated that there was considerable question as to whether
bonding and zoning could be included in Initiative and Referendum, tie
further stated that it would be necessary to spell out the vested
rights of people who act in reliance on the ordinance passed. Councilman
Czarnecki also questioned the procedures for revoking your signature
after filing. Chairman Meardon explained that an individual could file
a request to have his signature removed from the petition up to the time
of the filing of the petition.
Mr. Meardon stated that this was the Charter Committee's fiftieth meeting
and that the Charter Committee would be meeting to go over the criticisms
and suggestions of the City Council and that in the near future the
Charter Committee would be submitting the Charter to the Council.
V
M
IOWA CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE
June 22, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
GUESTS PRESENT:
MINUTES
Reardon, Welt, Baldus, Corrigan,
DeCOUnter
Cain, Davidsen, Knight, Ringgenberg
Rosenstein
Valerie Linn
Meeting held second floor Bit- Orleans Restaurant.
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. This was a
special meeting called by Chairman Meardon at 9:30 on June 22, 1973.
Mr. Meardon explained the purpose of this meeting was to make corrections
in the draft of the Charter, specifically in Article VII, Section
7.01 B. (1) (k)dealing with the effect of Initiative and Referendum on
City zoning. Mr. Meardon expressed concern that the draft as written
was incorrect in that it referred to several activities as being in the
zoning ordinance which were not in the zoning ordinance. After discussion
Mr. Baldus moved that the Section read "Amendments affecting the City
Zoning Ordinance, except affecting a tract of land two acres or more in
size." Mr. Corrigan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Baldus moved that the Charter Committee adopt the draft of the Charter
as written and submit this draft to the City Council on June 22, 1973
at its 4:00 p.m. meeting and recommend that this Charter be submitted to
the voters. Mr. DeCounter seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
The Committee agreed to ask the City Council to allow it to meet again
if there were any major legal questions with the Charter.
Mr. Welt expressed that he was against Initiative and Referendum being
in the Charter. No other member present desired to express any minority
opinions at this time.
Mr. Meardon stated that he would contact Mrs. Cain and explain to her that
the Committee has met and adopted the Charter and to get her feelings
on this subject. Mr. Meardon also stated that he would contact the
Mayor and tell him that the Charter was to be submitted at the June 22,
1973 meeting.
Chairman Meardon adjourned the meeting.
r'� °.
,tune 22, 4973
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of
Iowa City, Iowa
Gentlemen:
The Home Rule Charter of the City of Iowa City,
Iowa, as recommended and adopted by the Iowa City
Charter Committee has.been filed.
If there are mechanical errors or legal ob-
jections to any of the provisions of the proposed
Charter, please advise me of them so that we may
reconvene the Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
am o i, iairman
Iowa C y is ter Committee
I
June 22, 1973
T0: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of
Iowa City, Iowa
Gentlemen:
The Home Rule Charter of the City of Iowa City,
Iowa, as recommended and adopted by the Iowa City
Charter Committee, 1s attached to this letter.
Respectfully submitted,
i a L. Me 4at
Iowa C ty Charter Committee
P
ROME RULE CHARTER
OF THE CITY OF IOWA. CITY, IOWA
Recommended by the Iowa City Charter Committee
PREAMBLE
The Citizens of Iowa City, Iowa, by virtue of the enactment of
this Charter, adopt the following principles:
1. That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens
and all share the responsibility for it.
2. That the government of Iowa City is a service institution,
responsive and accountable to its citizens.
3. That City officials should be accessible to the people and
have an affirmative obligation to secure for each person equality of
opportunity as well as due process and equal protection of law.
4. That each citizen has a right to obtain fair, equal, and
courteous treatment from each City official and employee.
5. That the City should perform all acts and take all measures
O
°2°
necessary and desirable to promote the genaral health, safety and
welfare of its residents, to encourage the participation of its citi-
zens in policy formation. and to secure the full benefits of "Home Rule."
City.
Mayor.
C
City.
DEFINITIONS
As used in this Charter:
1. "City" mans the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
2. "City Council" or "Council" means the governing body of the
9. "Councilmember" means a member of the Council, including the
4. "Shall" imposes a duty
5. "Must" states a requirement.
6. "May" confers a power.
7. "Voter" mans a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa
8. "Qualified voter" means a voter who is registered to vote in
Iowa City.
9. "Board" includes a Board, Commission, Committee or other
similar entity however designated.
C
0
E
I
L
0
L
11
F,
0
P
Section 2.01. Composition.
The City Council consists of seven members. Four, to be known as
Councilmembers at- large, are to be nominated and elected by the quali-
fled voters of the City at large. The other three are to be known as
District Councilmembers; they are to be nominated by the qualified
voters of their respective districts, as provided by Article III, and
one is to be elected from each Council District by the qualified voters
of the City at large.
Section 2.02. Division into Council Districts.
The Council, by ordinance, shall divide the City into three Coun-
cil Districts of substantially equal population. These Districts are
to be designated as Council District A, Council District B, and Council
District C.
Suction 2.03. Eligibility.
To be eligible to be elected to and retail. a Council position, a
person most be a voter of Iowa City, and if seeking or elected to repre-
sent a Council District, domiciliary of that Council District.
Section 2.04. Terms.
At the first election under this Charter, all seven Councilmembers
G
j
_5-
Lo be elected; the Councilmember from Council District A, Council
District C, and the two Councilmembers at -large who receive the greatest
number of votes cast for Councilmember at -large are to serve for terms
of four years, and the other Councilmembera are to serve for terms of
two years. Commencing at the next regular City election, and at all
subsequent regular City elections, all Councilmembers elected to fill
the positions of those whose terms expire shall be elected for terms
of four years.
Section 2.05. Compensation.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of
the Mayor and the other Councilmembers, but an increase in the compen-
sation of the Mayor or other Councilmembers does not become effective
during the term in which the increase is adopted, and the Council may
not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December
City
immediately following a regular election.
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the beginning of the terms of Council -
members elected at the regular City election, the Council shall meet
and elect from among its members the Mayor and Mayor pro tem for a
term of two years.
B. The Mayor is a voting member of the Council, the official
representative of the City, presiding officer of the Council and
j
°6-
Us policy spokesman. The Mayor shall present to the City no later
Ulan February 28, an annual State of the City message. the Mayor, in
the manner provided by State law, may sign, veto or take no action on
an oclinance, amendment or resolution passed by the Council.
C. The Mayor pro tem shall act as Mayor during the absence of
the Mayor.
Section 2.07. General Powers and Duties.
All powers of the City are vested in the Council, except as other-
wise provided by State law and this Charter.
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. the Council shall appoint the City Manager.
B. The Council shall appoint the City Clerk.
C. The Council shall appoint the City Attorney and such other
legal counsel as it finds necessary, and it shall provide for the ap-
pointment of the City legal staff.
D. The Council shall appoint all members of the City's Boards,
except as otherwise provided by State law.
E. The Council shall fix the amount of compensation of persons
it appoints and shall provide for the method of compensation of other
City employees. All appointments and promotions of City employees must
W -7-
be made according Co job - related crltered ^n.'. be consistent with non-
discriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards established
pursuant to law.
Section 2.09. Rules; Records.
Me Council may determine its own rules and shall maintain re-
cords of its proceedings consistent with State law.
Section 2.10, Vacancies.
The Council shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective City
office as provided by State law,
Section 2.11. Council Action.
A. Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires
an affirmative vote of a majority of the Councilmembers except as other-
® ®�
wise provided by State law.
B. The Council may submit to the voters, without a petition,
a proposition for the repeal, amendment or enactment of any measure,
1
to voted upon at any succeeding general, regular or special City
election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the
votes cast on it at the election, the measure shall be repealed,
amended or enacted accordingly.
Section 2.12. Prohibitions. .
A. A Councilmember may not hold any other City office or be a
a.!�va� e: il•. �tT `zAiut:'S"3:;iufih'9�:Si: ^„"" -
-g-
City employee or elected County official i::I, serving on the Council
nor hold any remunerated City office or employment for at least one
year after leaving the Council.
®
B. Neither the Council nor
its members may dictate,
in any man-
Council District seat by-filing with the City Clerk a
ner, the appointment or removal of
any person appointed by
the City
her name be placed on the ballot
Manager. However, the Council may
express its views to the
City Manager
filed at least four weeks before
pertaining to the appointment or removal
of such employee.
regular City election and must contain signatures from
C. A Councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or di-
rection of any person appointed by or under the control of the City
Manager.
4 ARTICLE III.
NOMINATION, PRIMARY ELECTION AND REGULAR ELECTION
Section 1.01. Nomination.
u
A. A voter of
a Council District may become a candidate for a
cite
Council District seat by-filing with the City Clerk a
petition re-
become a candidate for
questing that his or
her name be placed on the ballot
for that office.
filing with
The petition must be
filed at least four weeks before
the date of the
a petition requesting
regular City election and must contain signatures from
the candidate's
District in a number
equal to one -third or more of the
number of sig-
natures required for
at -large candidates.
u
B.
A voter of
cite
City
may
become a candidate for
an at -large
scat by
filing with
the
City
Clerk
a petition requesting
that the can -
u
i
MM
B. If there are more than twice as many candidates as there are
® at -large positions to be filled, there shall be a primary election held
unless the Council, by ordinance, chooses to have a run -off election.
ISection 3.03. Regular City Election.
A. In the regular City election, each Council District seat up
for election shall be listed separately on the ballot and only the
names of candidates nominated from that Council District shall be
listed on the ballot as candidates for that seat. The three Council
District seats shall be designated on the ballot as Council District
didate'o name be placed on the ballot for that office.. The petition
must be filed at least four weeks before the date of the regular City
election and must be signed by voters of the City equal in number to
at least two percent of those who voted to fill the same office in the
last regular City election.
Section 3.02. Primary Election.
A. If there are more than two candidates for a Council District
seat, a primary election must be held for that seat with only the quali-
fied voters. of that Council District eligible to vote. the names of
the two candidates who receive highest
the number of votes in the pri-
mary election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular City elec-
tion as candidates for that Council seat.
B. If there are more than twice as many candidates as there are
® at -large positions to be filled, there shall be a primary election held
unless the Council, by ordinance, chooses to have a run -off election.
ISection 3.03. Regular City Election.
A. In the regular City election, each Council District seat up
for election shall be listed separately on the ballot and only the
names of candidates nominated from that Council District shall be
listed on the ballot as candidates for that seat. The three Council
District seats shall be designated on the ballot as Council District
f
A. The City Manager is under the direction and supervision of
the Council and holds office at its pleasure. Unleas otherwise pro-
vided by contract, a City Manager removed by the Council is entitled
to receive termination pay of not less than two months' salary, com-
puted from the date of the resolution of removal.
B. Upon the resignation or removal of the City Manager, the
Council shall appoint an individual qualified to perform the duties
of City Manager to serve at the pleasure of Council or until a City
Manager is appointed.
-w-
1, Counr!1 District B and Council District C snd each shall be elected
at large.
B. The at -large Council seats shall be designated on the ballot
as such.
ARTICLE IV.
CITY MANAGER
Section 4.01. Appointment; qualifications.
In appointing a City Manager, the Council shall consider only the
qualifications and fitness of the person without regard to political
or other affiliation. During his or her tenure the City Manager shall
reside within the City.
Section 4.02. Accountability; Removal.
A. The City Manager is under the direction and supervision of
the Council and holds office at its pleasure. Unleas otherwise pro-
vided by contract, a City Manager removed by the Council is entitled
to receive termination pay of not less than two months' salary, com-
puted from the date of the resolution of removal.
B. Upon the resignation or removal of the City Manager, the
Council shall appoint an individual qualified to perform the duties
of City Manager to serve at the pleasure of Council or until a City
Manager is appointed.
It
I"E
� �,.�7y ���'� i t v • >�r�.i r :+ � t r�i7 J� �t � R y f �[Tt �� T v uL, h+s,�y5� ,Y, �h � �i.'� , °.
-](-
Section 4.03. Absence; Disability of City Manager.
lbe City Manager may designate a qualified City employee as
Acting City Manager to perform his or her duties during a temporary
absence or disability. If the City Manager does not make such a desig-
nation, the Council shall appoint a qualified City employee to perform
the duties of the City Manager until he or she returns.
Section 4.04. Duties of City Manager.
A. The City Manager shall be chief administrative officer of the
City and shall:
(1) Insure that the laws of the City are executed and en-
forced.
(2) Supervise and direct the administration of City govern-
ment and the official conduct of employees of the City appointed by
the City Manager including their employment, training, reclassification,
suspension or discharge as the occasion requires, subject to State law.
(3)
Appoint or employ persons to occupy
positions for which
no other method of appointment is provided by State
law or this Charter.
(4)
Supervise the administration of the
City personnel system,
including
determination
the
of the compensation of
all City employees
appointed by
the City Manager subject to State law
and this Charter.
-12-
® (5) Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to
be done for the City, make all purchases of materials and supplies,
and assure that such materials and supplies are received and are of
specified quality and character.
(6) Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and
undertakings of the City, and all City -owned property including build-
ings, plants, systems, and enterprises, and to have charge of their
construction, improvement, repair and maintenance except where other-
wise provided by State law.
® (7) Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys,
maps, plans, drawings, specifications and estimates for the City.
(8) Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and
permits authorized by State law or City ordinance and cause a record
thereof to be maintained.
(9) Prepare and submit to the Council the annual budgets in
the form prescribed by State law.
I
U
(10) Provide the Council within ten days following the end
of each month an itemized written monthly report showing all receipts
and disbursements for the preceding month.
(11) Attend Council meetings and keep the Council fully ad-
-13-
vista of the financial and other conditi�hhs of the City and its needs.
(2) Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs
of any department or the conduct of any employee under supervision of
the City Manager.
(3) Execute contracts on behalf of the City when authorized
by the Council.
Section 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts.
Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the City Manager
IL
F
(12) See that the business affairs of the City are transacted
in an efficient manner and that accurate records of all City business
are maintained and made available to the public, except as otherwise
provided by State law.
(13) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and
professional assistance to Boards within limitations of the budget.
(14) Perform such other and further duties as the Council
may direct.
B. The City Manager, in performing the foregoing duties, may:
(1) Present recommendations and programs to the Council and
participate in any discussion by the Council of any matters pertaining
to the duties of the City Manager.
(2) Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs
of any department or the conduct of any employee under supervision of
the City Manager.
(3) Execute contracts on behalf of the City when authorized
by the Council.
Section 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts.
Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the City Manager
IL
F
i
-14°
®, shall not take part in any election of Cou,..:itmembers. This prohi-
bition shall in no way limit the City Manager's duty to make available
public records as provided by State law or this Charter.
ARTICLE V.
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
lJ
U
F
Section 5.01. Establishment.
The Council may establish Boards in addition to those required
by State law and shall specify the title, duties, length of term, qual-
ifications of members and other appropriate matters. The Council may
reduce or increase a Board's duties, transfer duties from one Board
to another or dissolve any Board, except as otherwise provided by State
law or this Charter.
Section 5.02. Appointment; Removal.
The Council shall appoint all members of Boards, unless otherwise
provided by State law, and shall seek to provide broad representation on
all Boards, subject to the requirements of State law. The Council shall
establish procedures to give at least thirty days' notice of vacancies
before they are filled and shall encourage nominations by citizens.
the Council shall establish conditions for the removal of members for
just cause, consistent with State law.
lJ
U
F
-15-
ticcllon 5,07, Rules.
A. The Council shall establish rules and procedures for the
operation of all Boards, which must include but are not limited to,
the adoption of by -laws and rules pertaining to open meetings.
B. The Council shall specify, for each Board, methods for infor-
mal and formal communication with Council, time schedules for the com-
pletion of reports requested by Council and such rules as it deems
appropriate.
C. A Board may establish additional rules and procedures that
are consistent with State law, Council rules, and this Charter.
1
ARTICLE VI.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES
® Section 6.01. Limitations on the Amount of Campaign Expenditures.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the
amount of campaign expenditures made by and on behalf of candidates
for election to Council.
1 Section 6.02. Disclosure of Contributions and Expenditures.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe procedures requiring,
immediately before and after each regular, special, primary, or run -off
election, the disclosure of the amount, source and kind of all contri-
t
I
(1) Initiative. The qualified voters have the right to pro-
pose ordinances to the Council and, if the Council fails to adopt an
ordinance so proposed without any change in substance, to have the
ordinance submitted to the voters at an election.
GI
-16-
blti0r..:; received and expenditures made by (1) each candidate for elec-
tion to Council and (2) any and all other persons, for the purpose of
aiding or securing the candidate's nomination or election.
Section 6.03. Definition.
Within this article an expenditure or contribution does not mean
a person's time donated to aid or promote a candidate's nomination or
election.
Section 6.04. Violations.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe (1) penalties for
the violation of the expenditure limitations and disclosure require-
ments it establishes pursuant to this section and (2) when appropriate,
conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right to serve on Coun-
cil if eler _ed, consistent with State law.
■
ARTICLE VII.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 7.01.
General Provisions.
A. Authority.
(1) Initiative. The qualified voters have the right to pro-
pose ordinances to the Council and, if the Council fails to adopt an
ordinance so proposed without any change in substance, to have the
ordinance submitted to the voters at an election.
GI
•.
t
11
Ir
F]
11
F
1
U
`J
l_' 1
a
C
-17-
(2) Referendum. The qualified voters have the right to re-
quire reconsideration by the Council of an existing ordinance and, if
the Council fails to repeal such ordinance, to have it submitted to
the voters at an election.
(3) Definition. Within this article, "ordinance" means all
measures of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of
a permanent rather than temporary character and (b) include a proposi-
tion enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy or
plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration
of a law, policy or plan already enacted by Council.
B. Limitations.
(1) Subject Matter. The right of initiative and referendum
shall not extend to any of the following:
(a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature.
(b) The City budget.
(c) The appropriation of money
(d) The leery of taxes or special assessments.
(e) The issuance of General Obligation Bonds.
(f) The letting of contracts.
1
?a`
F'
� f
F
l'1
federal law.
_fg_
(g) Salaries of City employees.
(h) Emergency ordinances.
(i) Any measure required to be enacted by State or
(j) Amendments to this Charter.
(k) Amendments affecting the City 'Zoning Ordinance,
except those affecting a tract of land two acres or more in size.
(2) Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall
be filed within two years after the same measure or a measure substan-
tially the same has been submitted to the voters at an election.
(3) Council Repeal, Amendment and Reenactment. No ordinance
proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the Council
without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant .
to this article, may for two years thereafter be repealed or amended
except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in
the original initiative ordinance. No ordinance referred by referendum
petition and repealed by the vote of the Council without submission to
the voters, or repealed by the voters pursuant to this article, may
®
U. Effect of Filing
1
-19-
ferendum petition does not
suspend or
bu n`c;;acted for two years thereafter except by vote of the people, un-
ordinance under
less provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition..
consideration and such ordinance
C. Construction.
remain in full
force and ef-
- (1) Scope of Power. It is intended that this article confer
repeal by
broad initiative
to Section 7.05A
and referendum powers upon the qualified voters of the
or until a majority of the
City.
this ordinance
(2) Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative peti-
vote to repeal or amend the
tion will be invalid because it repeals an existing ordinance in whole
and the vote is
or in part by virtue of proposing a new ordinance and (b) an initiative
petition may amend an existing ordinance.
'1
(3) Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition
may repeal an ordinance in whole or in part.
®
U. Effect of Filing
Petition.
The filing of an initiative or re-
ferendum petition does not
suspend or
invalidate any
ordinance under
consideration and such ordinance
shall
remain in full
force and ef-
fect until its amendment or
repeal by
Council pursuant
to Section 7.05A
or until a majority of the
qualified voters voting on
this ordinance
vote to repeal or amend the
ordinance
and the vote is
certified.
E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which
repeals an existing ordinance in whole or in part does not affect any
eF
WE
c- r�`v „'!1.11'�Y 3f�sI'�"i��.�3t�As 'f. _
-20-
obUj,..Lions entered into by the City, its agencies or any person in
reliance on the ordinance during the time it was in effect.
Section 7.02. Commencement of Proceedings; Affidavit.
A. Commencement. One or more qualified voters, hereinafter re-
ferred to as the "petitioners,” may commence initiative or referendum
proceedings by filing with the City Clerk an affidavit stating they
will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be responsible
for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and
specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent,
and by setting out in full the proposed initiative ordinance or citing
the ordinance sought to be reconsidered.
1
B. Affidavit. The City Clerk shall accept the affidavit for
filing if on its face it appears to have signatures of one or more
qualified voters. the City Clerk shall issue the appropriate peti-
tion forms to the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted
for filing. The City Clerk shall cause to be prepared and have avail-
able to the public, forms and affidavits suitable for the commencement
of proceedings and the preparation of initiative and referendum peti-
ttions.
Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation of Signatures.
A. Number of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions
S' t+i1 +♦ its s {Cl to "g . y S �54Jk'5�
rx .tgv �i w:. x�.. a s ,�. {,��.zL; baa, �5> `aSa; �r '- j
s, y
...
Zi�x a �r ; ld.- � '�°%iES � S 3 •"'n . ,S'� £, cd ��,• o
SY'
person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as
provided by State law.
B. Form and Content. Al. papers of a petition prepared for
-21-
assembled as one instrument. Each signature on the petition must be
followed by the address of the person signing and the date the signa-
must
be signed
by qualified voters equal in number to
at least twenty -
the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition
five
percent of
the number of persons who voted in the
last regular
City
election,
but by not fewer than two thousand five
hundred quali-
signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed
fied
voters.
paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures
person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as
provided by State law.
B. Form and Content. Al. papers of a petition prepared for
flung must be substantially uniform in size and style and must be
assembled as one instrument. Each signature on the petition must be
followed by the address of the person signing and the date the signa-
ture is executed. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or
have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of
the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition
j
filed with the City Clerk need have attached to it only one copy of
the ordinance being proposed or referred.
C. Affidavit of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing
®
signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed
by a qualified City voter certifying: the number of signatures on the
paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures
were affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes them to
be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be
and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the
full text of the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any
person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as
provided by State law.
air, r• :, >, ri�.i�.�a.�`1��.G�.'£ ^�* @�` - '���`?�. �EV'.Y�
-22-
0. Time for Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an ini-
tiative petition mast be secured and the petition filed within six
months after the date the affidavit required under Section 7.02A was
filed.
E. Time for Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions may
be filed within sixty days after final adoption by the Council of the
ordinance sought to be reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more
than two years after such final adoption. The signatures on a referendum
petition must be secured during the sixty days after such final adoption;
however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final adop-
tion, the signatures mast be secured within six months after the date the
affidavit required under Section 7.02A was filed.
P
F. Revocation of Signature. Prior to the time a
petition is
filed with the City Clerk, a signatory may revoke his or
her signature
®
for any recson by filing with the City Clerk a
statement
of his or her
intent to revoke his or her signature: After a
petition
is filed a
signatory may not revoke his or her signature.
The City
Clerk shall
cause to be prepared and have available to the
public, form; suitable
for the revocation of petition signatures.
1
Section 7.04. Procedure after Filing.
A. Certificate of City Clerk; Amendment.
Within
twenty days after
P
-23-
IB. Council Review. if a petition has been certified insuffi-
cient by the City Clerk and one or more of the petitioners do not file
notice of intention to amend it or if an amended petition has been cer-
ff
a petition is filed, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as
to its sufficiency, specifying, if it is insufficient, the particulars
it is
.
wherein defective and shall promptly send a copy of the certifi-
cate to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified in-
sufficient for lack of the required number of valid signatures may be
amended once if one or more of the petitioners files a notice of in-
tention to amend it with the City Clerk within two days after receiving
a copy of such certificate and files a supplementary petition upon
additional papers within fifteen days after receiving a'copy of
such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall comply with
Ithe
requirements of Subsections B and C of Section 7.03, and within
five days after it is filed the City Clerk shall complete a certi-
ficate as to the sufficiency of the petition as amended and promptly
send a copy of such certificate eo the petitioners by registered mail
ats In the case of an original petition. If a petition or amended peti-
tion is certified sufficient, or if a petition or amended petition is
certified insufficient and one or more of the petitioners do not amend
or request Council review under Subsection B of this Section within
1
the time prescribed, the City Clerk shall promptly present the cer-
tificate to the Council.
IB. Council Review. if a petition has been certified insuffi-
cient by the City Clerk and one or more of the petitioners do not file
notice of intention to amend it or if an amended petition has been cer-
ff
-24-
C. Court Review; New Petition. Each qualified voter has a right
to judicial review of Council's determination as to the sufficiency of
a petition. Proceedings for judicial review will be equitable in na-
ture and must be filed in the State.District Court for Johnson County.
Me right to judicial review is conditioned upon the timely filing of
a request for Council review under Section 7.04B, and the filing of the
petition for court review within thirty days after determination by
Council as to the sufficiency of the petition. A determination of in-
sufficiency, even if sustained upon court review, shall not prejudice
the filing of a new petition for the same purpose.
1 D. Validity of Signatures. A petition shall be deemed suffi-
cient for the.purposes of Section 7.04
if
it contains valid signatures
m
till -•! insufficient by the City Clerk,
one or more of the
petitioners
swiy, within two days after receiving a
copy of such certificate,
file
though the petition may contain one or
with the City Clerk a request that is
be reviewed by the
Council. The
it
Council shall review the certificate at
its next meeting
following the
it
filing of such a request, but not later
than thirty days
after the
filing for
of the request review, and
shall rule upon the
sufficiency
of the petition.
C. Court Review; New Petition. Each qualified voter has a right
to judicial review of Council's determination as to the sufficiency of
a petition. Proceedings for judicial review will be equitable in na-
ture and must be filed in the State.District Court for Johnson County.
Me right to judicial review is conditioned upon the timely filing of
a request for Council review under Section 7.04B, and the filing of the
petition for court review within thirty days after determination by
Council as to the sufficiency of the petition. A determination of in-
sufficiency, even if sustained upon court review, shall not prejudice
the filing of a new petition for the same purpose.
1 D. Validity of Signatures. A petition shall be deemed suffi-
J
cient for the.purposes of Section 7.04
if
it contains valid signatures
in
the number prescribed by Section 7.03A
and is timely filed, even
though the petition may contain one or
more invalid signatures. A
signature shall be deemed valid unless
it
is not the genuine signa-
ture of the qualified voter whose name
it
purports to be, or it was
1
J
L
R. Submission to Voters. Tiic vote of the City OR a proposed or
not voluntarily and knowingly executed. A valid signature need not
be in the identical form in which the qualified voter's name appears
on the voting rolls.
T �l
Section 7_05. Action on Petitions.
t
A. Action by Council. When an initiative or referendum peti-
a
tion has been determined sufficient, the Council shall promptly
-25-
L
R. Submission to Voters. Tiic vote of the City OR a proposed or
not voluntarily and knowingly executed. A valid signature need not
be in the identical form in which the qualified voter's name appears
on the voting rolls.
Section 7_05. Action on Petitions.
A. Action by Council. When an initiative or referendum peti-
tion has been determined sufficient, the Council shall promptly
consider the proposed initiative ordinance or reconsider the referred
ordinance. If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative ordi-
nance without any change in substance within sixty days or fails to re-
peal the referred ordinance within thirty days after the date the peti-
tion was finally determined sufficient, it shall
1
submit the proposed
or referred ordinance to the qualified voters of the City as hereinafter
prescribed.
Council may refuse to submit to the voters an ordinance
which has been proposed or referred in accordance with the provisions
®
of this article only if the petition is deemed insufficient
pursuant
to Section 7.04. If at any time more than thirty days before
a
scheduled initiative or referendum election Council adopts a proposed
initiative ordinance without any change in substance
or repeals a re-
ferred ordinance, the initiative or referendum
proceedings shall ter-
minate and the proposed or referred ordinance
shall not be submitted
to the voters.
L
R. Submission to Voters. Tiic vote of the City OR a proposed or
C�; a?' 4�et5y.x
x.S�°i�cnl�v :_.'i�2t[zfwe����Ss�o`�"
�t
S:T
-Z6°
D
rc(e -red ordinance shall be hold at the regular City election or at the
general election which next occurs more than thirty days after the ex°
ptration of the appropriate sixty or thirty day period provided for
consideration or reconsideration in Section 7.05A, provided, however,
Council may provide for a special refc.end..m election on a referred
that
thirty day period pro-
time after the expiration of the
ordinance any
vided for reconsideration in Section 7.05A. Copies of the proposed or
referred ordinance shall be made available to the qualified v:ters at
the polls and shall be advertised at the City's expense in the manner
required for "questions" in Section 65 of the City Code of Iowa. Th e
subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed ordinance shall
be Indicated on the ballot.
Section 7.06. Results of Election.
A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on
initiative ordinance vote in its favor, it shall be considered
a proposed
adopted upon certification of the election results and shall be treated
in all respects in the same manner as ordinances of the same kind adopted
by the Council, except as provided in Section 7.01B(3). If conflicting
ordinances are approved by majority vote at the same election, the one
receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to
the extent of such conflict.
B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting
D
d _27-
on it referred ordinance vote against it. It shall be considered re-
peaied upon certification of the election results.
section 7.07. Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or
: <cauirements.
The Council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions
or requirements affecting initiative and referendum which are higher
or more stringent than those imposed by this Charter.
ARTICLE VIII.
CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW
Section 8.01, Qiarter Amendments.
B. The Council, by ordinance, may amend the Charter. However,
within thirty (30) days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition
signed by voters of the City equal in number to ten percent of the per-
sons who voted at the last preceding regular City election is filed
With the Council, the Council must submit the amending ordinance to
the voters at a City election, and the amendment does not become ef-
fective until approved by a majority of those voting.
*4-,
This Charter may
be amended only
by one of the following methods:
A. The Council,
by resolution,
may submit a proposed amendment
to the voters at a City
election, and
a proposed amendment becomes
effective when approved
by a majority
of those voting.
B. The Council, by ordinance, may amend the Charter. However,
within thirty (30) days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition
signed by voters of the City equal in number to ten percent of the per-
sons who voted at the last preceding regular City election is filed
With the Council, the Council must submit the amending ordinance to
the voters at a City election, and the amendment does not become ef-
fective until approved by a majority of those voting.
*4-,
MA
-28-
... it it petition slgncil by voters of the City cyual In number
to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular
City election is filed with the Council proposing an amendment to the
Charter, the Council must submit the proposed amendment to the voters
at a City election, and the amendment becomes effective if approved
by a majority of those voting.
Section 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
The Council, using the procedures prescribed in Article V, shall
i
i establish a Charter Review Commission at least once every ten years
following the effective date of this Charter. The Commission, consisting
of at least nine members, sh ^11 review the existing Charter and may,
within twelve months recommend any Charter amendments that it deems fit.
TSte Council shall submit such amendments to the voters in the form pre-
scribed by the Commission, and an amendment becomes effective when ap-
proved by a majority of those voting.
1 Dated this 22nd day of June, 1973.
Dale Welt
1
0
Brad DeCounter
James Knight
William Meardon
Clayton Ringgenberg
David Baldus
Patricia Cain
Robert Corrigan
Penny Davidsen
Dale Welt
1
0
Brad DeCounter
James Knight
William Meardon
Clayton Ringgenberg
2
1-17
JU1NT MRETINC WITH CHARTER COMMISSION
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
JULY 17, '97i
12:30 P.M.
The Iowa City City Council met in informal session with
the Charter Commission at 12:30 P.M. on the 17th day of July,
1973 in the Conference Room at the Civic Center.
Councilmen present: Brandt, Czarnecki, White, Connell
(12:55). Absent: Nickerson. Charter Committee members
Present: Chairman William Meardon, Pat Cain and Penny David-
son. Others present: Wells, Honohan, Klaus, Kraft, Stolfus,
Zelenka, Maune, Rosenstein.
The Mayor announced discussion of the Charter and of
the City Attorney's letter of July 10th on proposed initia-
ticn and referendum provision for the Charter. Chairman
Meardon explained their amendment on page 17, Section 7.01
B i(e) to insert the words "and Revenue" after the word
"Obligation ". In answer to the question on the committee's
feeling on an election timetable, he noted general consen-
sus of no specific timetable, that this was in the province
of the Council. Council discussed provisions for amending
the Charter; role of the Committee during election, they
would campaign for it, glad to participate and explain.
The City Attorney explained the recommendations presented
in his letter. The Mayor thanked the Committee for their work
on the Charter. The Chairman of the Committee then thanked
the Council and the staff for their help.
Mayor Brandt announced executive session to discuss
appointments to the Housing Commission, and reminded Council
of special meeting at 4:00 P.M. on Friday for action on the
Charter when Councilman Nickerson is present. The Clerk was
asked to get information on publication for the Charter.
The City Attorney advised that the Ordinance on use of the
Iowa River was on today's formal agenda.
q`ic)
July 17, 1973
T0: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of
Iowa City, Iowa
Gentlemen:
In response to the motion to refer the proposed Home
Rule Charter back to the Charter Committee for further
review and report in view or the opinion of the City At-
torney, I wish to advise that the Charter Committee held
a meeting and reviewed the proposed Charter on Yhursday,
July 12, 1973.
As a result of the discussion and consideration of
this matter the proposed Charter has been amended by in-
serting the words "and Revenue" after the word 'Obligation"
found on page 17 in Paragraph (e) (1) B. of Section 7.01.
A corrected version of the Charter incorporating the
above amendment will be filed subsequently.
Respectfully ,submitted
Iowa CIO Char - Committee
r �p��fn1
JUL1 71973
ABBIE STOUEUS
MY CLEW,
RESOLUTION NO. 73 -316
RESOLUTION SUBMITTING THE PROPOSED HOME
RULE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, rOR ELECTION.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, has duly
enacted a Resolution ..dopting division for organization of the City
Government of the City Code of Iown (HF574) of the Acts of the 64th. General
Assembly of Iowa, and
WHEREAS, Section 55 of said City Code of Iowa authorized the City Council
to cause a Charter to be prepared and filed and made by resolution, submit it
to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Home Rule Charter of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
was originally filed on June 22, 1973, and after an amendment, thereto was
refiled by the Charter Committee, appointed by the City Council of the City
of Iowa City on July 17, 1973, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, deems it in the
public interest that the proposed Charter should be submitted to the voters of
the City of Iowa City to determine whether or not it should be adopted as the
form of government for the City of Iowa City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Iowa
City, Iowa, as follows: -
1. That the proposed Home Rule Charter shall be submitted at a special
City election on a date selected by the Mayor.
2. That the City Clark ie. hereby authorized and directed to publish the
Proposed Home Rule Charter and the form of ballot therefore in the Iowa City
Press Citizen, a newspaper published daily, except Sundays, and having general
circulation in the
3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to prepare appro-
priate ballots therefore, and that said ballots pursuant to Section 55 of House
File 574 of the Acts of the 64th General Assembly shall submit, in addition to
the Proposed Charter, the existing form of government as an alternative.
4. That the City Manager, City Clark and the City Attorney are hereby
authorized and directed to take all necessary steps pursuant to the election lave
of the State of Iowa and the Ordinance of the City of Iowa City, for the setting
and the carrying out of the special City election on the date selected by the Mayor
on the Proposed Home Rule Charter.
It was moved by flicker opeon and seconded by Connell
that the Resolution ae read by adted, and upon roll call there wares
AYES: NAYS; ABSENT:
x_ Brandt
x a Connell
Czarnecki
�x Nickerson
x White
ATTEST;4,I
City Clerk
Passed and approved this 20 day of I July , A.D., 1973.
Late Handouts— Handed out at 4/8/14 meeting
,�C� - -
Charter Review Commission
May 14, 1984
Charter Review Commission: May 14, 1984, at 7:30 p.m, in the Conference room
it the C vCe Center.
Commission Present: Roberts, Balmer, Davidsen, Welt, Cain, Matsumoto,
Goodwin, R nggenberg, Mintzer.
Staff Present: Melling, Karr, Smith.
Tape Recorded: CRC -1, Side 1, 1 -End.
Helling stated that the Charter Review Commission is an ad hoc commission
appointed for one year with terms expiring April 10, 1985. Commission
members nominated and elected officers of the Charter Review Commission.
Balmer and Roberts were elected as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, respec-
tively.
Commission members discussed holding public hearings, publication expendi-
tures, how to review the charter, background information about the original
charter, soliciting public input about the charter, and scheduling of
meetings. Mintzer requested minutes of the original Charter Review Commis-
sion meetings be made available. Davidsen, Welt, Cain and Ringgenberg,
original Charter Review Commission members, agreed to each review and present
specific sections of the charter at the next meeting. Commission members
agreed to meet twice a month on alternate Mondays when possible. The next
meeting will be Wednesday, May 30 at 7:30 p.m. due to the Memorial Day
holiday.
Balmer requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney on the charter. In
response to Karr, Commission members want summary minutes of the minutes
prepared and enclosed in their bi- weekly packets. Minutes needs not be
forwarded to the City Council unless specifically requested. Karr should use
her own discretion regarding attendance at the Charter Review Commission
meetings.
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
101
Charter Review Commission
May 30, 1984
Charter Review Commission: May 30, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference
Room at t e ivic en er. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission resent: Balmer, Cain, Davidsen, Goodwin, Matsumoto, Mintzer,
R nggen erg, Roberts, Welt.
Staff present: Meiling, Smith.
Tape- recorded: Reel 9184, Side 2, 1 -End; 1284, Side 1, 1 -End, Side 2,
1 -113.
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and briefly
commented on the length of meetings to be held.
FORMER CHARTER REVIEW MEMBERS' OVERVIEW:
Former Commission members (Cain, Davidsen, Welt, Ringgenberg) summarized
the charter's preamble in each article. The Commission discussed the
Council- manager form of government, voting districts, duties of the City
Manager, repeal of amendments or enactments, City employee compensation
and appointments, appointment and removal from boards and commissions,
campaign contributions and expenditures, amending the charter and initia-
tive and referendum petitions. Mintzer requested that the State law and
City ordinance regarding campaign contributions and expenditures be sent
to Commission members. Balmer said that he would like the Commission to
discuss general election voting on proposed or referred ordinances.
MINUTES:
The Commission requested minutes be sent to City Council. Minutes should
summarize the meeting and include discussion on major issues and the
action taken. Individual members expressed their views on shorter concise
minutes or a longer detailed version.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
Commission members agreed to the summer meeting schedule as stated in the
May 16th memo from Assistant City Manager Dale Helling, except meetings
will not be held in August.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Roberts suggested that the Commission use the next two meetings to review
the charter before soliciting public input. Cain stated the organizations
listed with the City at the public library should be contacted. Commission
members agreed to initially work on the charter and send letters out to
organizations requesting input about the charter in the fall.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20.
1091
Charter Review Commission
June 11, 1984
Charter Review Commission: June 11, 1984, at 7:30 in the Conference Room at
the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: Go:Jwin, Ringgenberg, Welt, Cain, Balmer, Matsumoto,
Roberts sent: Davidson, Mintzer.
Staff Present: Berlin, Helling, Karr.
Tae Recorded: Reel 284, Side 2, 113 -End; 8384, Side 1, i -End, Side 2,
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Pat Cain
announced her resignation from the Charter Review Commission because she has
accepted a position with the City of Iowa City as an Associate Planner. Moved
by Ringgenberg, seconded by Welt, to recommend to the City Council that the
vacancy created by Cain's resignation be filled by a Charter Review Commis-
sion member from the original Comnission.
Commission members recommended that the first sentence under former Charter
Review members overview of the May 30, 1984, Charter Review Commission
menu
is s ou a amended to read, "former Connissior, members (Cain,
Davidson, Welt, Ringgenberg) summarized the charter's preamble and each ,
article." Minutes were approved as amended.
Detailed Minutes
Balmer said that at the May 30, 1984 meeting, the Commission agreed that
there should not be volumes of minutes but issues of importance should be
written in more detail. He said that because of the nature of the May 30
meeting, the minutes as written are adequate. Karr asked if meeting minutes
should explain each member's position on each issue and if public hearing
minutes should virtually be transcriptions. Cain said the original Charter
Review minutes from .ten years ago were extremely detailed. Karr said that
detailed minutes could be accomplished but would take longer to prepare. Karr
noted that a concise version is helpful even if more detailed minutes are
prepared because the City Council and others are interested in action taken
and not necessarily the reasons behind every decision. Balmer said that
because audio tapes are kept of meetings, two sets of minutes are not
necessary. Cain said the editing of minutes is sometimes necessary to filter
vit:•iolic public input. The Commission agreed that actual transcriptions are
not necessary. Summaries of discussions of issues should be included in the
minutes and that speakers at public hearings should be encouraged to bring
something in writing. Balmer said that highlights of individual Commission
members' positions should be included in the minutes.
Staff�inq
Balmer noted that there are over 600.organizations in the Library's organiza-
tional card file. Karr said that she doesn't have existing personnel to
enable her department to make the list by hand. A computerized list won't be
available from the library soon enough to help. The organizations are divided
1aoa
ly type such as hobby, political, and civic. Cain, suggested omitting some
organizational categories such as hobby. Karr said that she also will need
help on mass mailings. Balmer suggested that Committee members could examine
the library's ,organizations listings and determine which are necessary to
contact. Barry Matsumoto and Gary Goodwin agreed to screen the library
listings. ,They will bring the basic categories and appropriate number in
each category to the committee's next meeting for consideration. Balmer
suggested public service announcements in ara newspapers and radio stations
to inform interested people of the public hearing. Berlin said that the space
on the back of the City water utility bill is available for announcing the
public hearing if enough lead time is given.
Review of Existing Charter
Preamble
Goodwin suggested including a reference to open meetings and to freedom of
information in the preamble. Balmer said that the charter already includes a
reference to open meetings. This area is already covered by state law and
the Charter Review Commission adheres to the law. Cain said Section 2
embodies the concept of freedom of information. Karr pointed out that in her
May 9, 1984 memo, she recommended changes in definitions 7 (voter) and 8
(qualified voter) to make them consistent with applicable state codes. Balmer
said that the original Charter Review Commission apparently wished to maka it
difficult to place initiative avid referendum issues on the 'ballots and
changing the language from voter and qualified voter to qualified elector and
eligible elector may make it easier to place issues on the ballot. Karr said
that the change should be consistent throughout the charter, and include the
initiative and referendum procedures. Balmer said that the City Attorney had
not yet given an opinion on whether the language must match the language of
the state code. City Attorney referred to the changes as technical changes
in his May 23, 1984 memo to the committee. Karr and Balmer said that the
state law refers to "eligible voter' and 'qualified voter'. Karr added that
'eligible voter" means they are eligible to vote while 'qualified" means they
have actually registered. She added that these definitions have caused
h problems
ewould like to p n initiative n
toleavetheprocedurei referendum
n placefor initiative and referendum•
Karr noted the procedure would not change, only the terms 'eligible elector'
would be substituted for "voter' and 'qualified elector" substituted for
"qualified voter.' Cain said that the definition should be changed to reach
'elector` rather than "voter' to make the definitions consistent with the
state. Welt said that he is not in favor of making changes unless it is
absolutely necessary to meet legal requirements. In response to Balmer,
Berlin will ask the City Attorney to review the charter in its entirety.
Commission members discussed how charter amendments will be submitted to
voters. Balmer noted that the City Council could make changes to the charter
by ordinance. Commission members agreed to submit major amendments to voters
and request only Council action on minimal changes to the charter.
Article 1
No discussion.
ON,
+� iw i'F1'y- it }in �'�:_� �' i� t `'r..' t {1..... Ywr �S �J
i
Arti,lc ii
Cain noted that "qualified voter" should be changed to "qualified elector."
No problems were foreseen but legal review was requested. Commission members
discussed keeping the three Council districts but allowing only voters from
the district to vote for the person from that district. Original Charter
Review members commented that the original intent of the charter was that any
person elected to the Council should be responsive to the entire community
but that citizens in the community would have a specific Council member in
their district whom they could easily contact. Cain stated that veto powers
by the Mayor (Section 2.06.8) were included in the original charter due to
the state law. Commission members r- 4uested a legal opinion re removal of
the Mayor's veto power from Section 2.06. It was noted that Section 2.08.0
allows for Council discretion and input for the appointment of the city legal
staff. Balmer noted that the Airport and Library Boards are in essence
appointed by the Council although the state law states that they should be
appointed by the Mayor. Cain explained that the state law (372.13) provides
for filling Council vacancies and that Council appoints someone to fill the
vacancy until the next election. A vacancy occurring in a specific district
needs to be filled from the dist -ict when the elections occur. A special
election could be held to fill a Council vacancy. Balmer noted that Section
2.11.8 allows the Council to call an election on an issue without receiving a
petition. Cain noted that legal staff stated that, although such action is
not specifically permitted by state law, it is legal. Cain said that in
Section 2.12.A the prohibition for a Council member from holding a renu-
merated city office or employment is mean to prevent abuse of, the Council
formeroCount Matsumoto
member has that whichewould benefit the
with provision
City. if a
Charter Review Commission agreed to retain the language.
Article III
Cain noted that this article closely follows state law. Throughout the
article, the word 'voters` will be replaced by the word 'electors.' in
response to Balmer, Cain said that the provision for run -off elections in
Section 3.02.8 keeps the charter close to the existing state law. City
Attorney will review section to be sure it is consistent with current state
law. Commission members requested clarification of the need for a run -off
election as stated in Section 3.02.8,
Article IV
Cain noted that the only change from state law in this articla is the
requirement that the City Manager must reside within Iowa City.
Attorney to review. In response to Bal City
mer, Cain said that the termination
Pay included in Section 4.02.A is not meant to limit the termination pay to
only two month's salary if the Council wishes to award more. Balmer said
that termination for just cause, for instance commission of a crime, may make
termination pay inappropriate. Cain said that such circumstances weren't
considered. City Attorney to review. Berlin outlined the terms of his
Position, saying that it is an agreement rather than a contract. Berlin said
that ten years ago such agreements were rare but now 80 -90% of all city
manager positions arc probably covered by similar agreements. Cain said that
Section 4.03 took a long time to discuss and write because of the question of
whether the City Manager or the City Council should designate an acting City
Me
oK. 1 Mi{t 3f Y 4x Tk(y ifs - l Sa$' }Y 43 .k `{1i Ti it �y .g �'.r'tY 4 of tSy: i+4M In2.Yi{' V 3i%
Manager in case of temporary absence or disaoility. Cain said that large
blocks of Section 4.04 were take directly from statc code. Changes were
examined by the legal staff. Berlin said that Section 4.04.A, item (10), is
antiquated but must remain because it is state law. Commission members
proposed to delete "within ten days following the end of each month" and
substitute "Provide the Council monthly an itemized written monthly re-
port..." from Section. 4.04.A, item (10). At Berlin's suggestion, the
Commission agreed to leave in 4.04.8, paragraph 3, because, even though the
Mayor routinely executes contracts, the City Manager may be called upon to do
so. City Attorney to review.
Article V
Balmer said that although there
commissions, and committees, overall
regulating this area. Berlin note d
most disagreements,
Article VI
are occasional problems among boards,
the charter has done a very good job of
that policy matters are the source of
Balmer said that this article needs to be changed to agree with state law.
Balmer stated that Davidson has previously indicated that there had been an
campaign Court
fi ancedis c e
on
disclosure Cain encted constitutionality of
s oresearchtshows
that tile court found the act constitutional. The Federal Supreme Court nn
campaign financing dpes not apply to this section. Karr noted that the
charter's policy should be clear to candidates and the Commission needs to
consider whether campaign disclosure information :hould be filed at the city
or county level as well as with the state. Matsumoto said that the City's
campaign disclosure should be a good law as well as conforming to state law.
Cain said that the charter should set specific disclosure rules rattier than
linking rules to state law because even if the state law eliminates the need
for disclosure, Iowa City should maintain it. The charter language can
encompass what is currently in both the city and state codes.
Meeting Schedule
The next Commission meeting will be June 25. Cain will attend that meeting
but Balmer asked Berlin to express to the City Council the importance of
appointing Cain's replacement as soon as possible, preferably with a member
of the original Commission.
Meeting adjourned 9;15 p.m,
►aoa
3 !?-. .. 45{ -.ice% i!g �?Yqn T,t .J.E r"r`,S >.�;�3 E"'_`; A� " �Ft L P- A .`si :.:y „c r. •" -fit pYFkS�n4w7i� �,�.�i.F /!Jl ^��
Charter Review Coanission
June 25, 1984
Charter Review Commission: June 25, 1984, at 1 :30 p.m, in the Conference
Room at the mvic Center: Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: Goodwin, Ringgenberg, welt, Balmer, Matsumoto, Mintzer,
a us. sen,: oberts, Davidsen.
Staff Present: Berlin, Melling, Karr, Smith.
Tape Recorded: Reel 3- 84,.Side 2, 192 -End; Reel 4 -84, Side 1, 1 -End, Side 2,
1 -106.
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m, and introduced
the new Charter Review Commission member, David Baidus. Balmer noted a
typographical error (changing the word determination to read termination) in
line 3 of the Article IV paragraph of the June 11, 198, Charter Review
Commission minutes. Minutes were approved as corrected.
Review of Existing Charter
Article VII
Karr referred Commission members to Jansen's June 25 memo stating sections of
the charter that need to be amended to change 'voter" to "eligible elector"
and 'qualified voter" to "qualified elector.
Balmer inquired about Section 7.018.1.(k), the right of initiative and
referendum, not extending to amendments affecting the City zoning ordinance
except those affecting- a tract of land two acres or more in size. Baldus
explained that the original Charter Review Commission felt that the right of
initiative and referendum should not be extended for trivial concerns but
should consider matters involving large numbers of people. Berlin noted that
"two acres" is tied to large scale and residential developments. Balmer
requested review of this section by the City's legal staff.
Ringgenberg requested Karr review original Charter Review Commission minutes
to get clarifications on Section 1,0I.B.I.h Emergency Ordinances.
Baidus noted the concern raised by City Clerk Karr (memo of May 9, 1984 re
need for signatures to be from qualified voters or eligible voters). Balmer
explained that the qualified voter terms make it more difficult to place
initiative and referendum issues on the ballot and should remain, Members
concurred.
Mintzer questioned the 60 -day and two -year requirements in Section 7.03.E,
Time for filing referendum petitions and said this section should be
d1scus5e n more detail. -
Karr stated that changes are needed in Section 7.04, Procedure after f,' filing.
Inserting the word "business" in Ont of "days" would allow eight a it onal
days in which to verify signatures. Berlin suggested extending the 20 -day
/,? 97
period and requiring only verification of an additional 10% of the signatures
in excess of the required amount. Other alternatives will be discussed at
the next meeting. Karr also requested clarification of 7.04.0, Validity of
signatures. Commission discussed methods to validate signatures on 'the
petitions. Karr will make a recommendation of changes, prepare a schedule
showing the timing of petition filing procedures, and meet with the City's
legal staff to determine what information, in addition to the signatures and
address, can he requested on the petition form. (7.03.8)
Mintzer suggested changing the second sentence in Section 7.05.A to eliminate
the double negative in the third sentence re Council failing to .adopt a
proposed initiative ordinance without a change. Balmer requested that
Mintzer bring a corrected version to the next meeting for discussion.
Balmer said that initiative and referendum should be on the ballots at
regular city elections and not at general elections as allowed in Section
7.05.8 because city issues should be decided in city elections. Ringgenberg
noted that by allowing initiative and referendum voting only in city elec-
tions, there nay be too long of a voting period between potential voting
dates. Baldus stated that the original Charter Review Commission intent was
to get larger voter involvement and broader participation in the initiative
and referendum process. Ringgenberg will review the original Charter Review
Commission minutes for further input.
In response to Balmer, Karr confirmed that conflicting initiative ordinances
could appear on a ballot and both might pass by a majority. Section 7.06.A
that in such a case, the ordinance receiving the greatest number of affirma-
tive votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict.
Article VIII -
In response to Balmer, Berlin said that legal staff should review Sections
8.01 and 8.02 regarding charter amendments and whether the charter can be
changed to allow technical or housekeeping changes by the City Council.
Notice was given to the wording of 8.02 which states the °Council shall submit
such amendment to the voters..., The Charter Review Commission agreed that .
it is desirable to have the City Council adopt housekeeping changes by
ordinance while still sutxnitting significant changes to the voters. Balmer
said that it io important to decide by the next meeting the proper method for
making housekeeping changes. Berlin recommended that Balmer discuss the
issue with Mayor McDonald.
Commission Time - Article VI Campaign Contributions and Expenditures
Mintzer said that he has compared state law, the charter and past and current
City Code Chapter 10, He asked how much power should be given the Council to
regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. Mintzer gave examples of
differences between the city Code and state law, Balmer said that the City
Code was changed in response to Supreme Court decisions. Berlin recommended
reviewing original Charter Review Commission minutes and past files in the
City Attorney's office. Mintzer said that campaign disclosure should not be
left to city discretion.. Mintzer spoke in favor of making local rules
stricter. Karr emphasized that Jansen has stated the importance of keeping
the charter consistent with Chapter 10.
11797
1
Public Hearing Notices
Goodwin reported the library's lists of organizations are divided into 12
categories. The Commission requested staff to obtain the "civic" organiza-
tions listing from the library. The Commission discussed ways to publicize
public hearings including using the back of utility bills, newspaper ads,
contacting City of Iowa City boards and commissions, and inviting comments
from former Councilmembers and staff. Goodwin, Mintzer, Davidson will work
on the public hearing mailings.
Next Meeting
The next Charter Review Commission meeting is scheduled for July 9, 7:10 p.m,
Balmer requested Karr make the list of issues and technical changes that the
Charter Review Commission needs to further discuss at the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m,
/-797
,
t uti:.R
DRAFT
Not approved by Commnission
Charter Review Commission
July 9, 1984
Charter Review Commission: July 9, 1984 at 7:30 in the Conference Room at
the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: 0avidsen, Baldus, Ringgenberg, Balmer, Mintzer, Roberts
( sent: Matsumoto, Welt, Goodwin,
Staff Present: Berlin, Welling, Karr, Smith.
Tape Recorded: Reel 4 -84, Side 2, 4106 -End; f5 -84, Side 1, All, Side 2,
/I -253.
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m. Minutes. were
approved as read. Balmer explained that the Council may make housekeeping
changes to the charter and changes will be proposed by the City Manager and
City Clerk. Balmer also noted that Jansen is reviewing the charter in its
entirety.
Review of the Proposed Changes to Charter.
Charter Review Commission members reviewed proposed changes to the charter as
provided by the City Clerk. Mintzer inquired about overriding and veto
powers. Berlin said that the veto power cnuld be removed because it has been
removed from state law. Commission members d1reed to discuss Section 2.06,8
further, Balmer said that in the City Clerk's July 9 memo, Jansen reported
that Section 4.04.8 cannot be changed. In response to Mintzer, Balmer
explained that qualified electors must be registered to vote. Charter Review
Commission members agreed to delete Section 7.01.8.18 Emergency Ordinances.
In response to Davidsen, Karr explained that Section 8.02 states that
recommendations from the Charter Review Commission must be approved by
voters.
Commission reviewed Mintzer's suggested amendments to Section 7.05,A. The
Commission agreed to amend 7.05.A by changing the second sentence to read "If
the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative ordinance and fails to adopt
an ordinance which is similar in substance within 60 days, or if the Council
fails to repeal the referred ordinance within 30 days after the date the
petition was finally determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or
referred ordinance to the qualified voters of the City as hereinafter
prescribed." The fourth sentence was changed to read, "If at any time more
than 30 days before a scheduled initiative or referendum election the Council
adopts the proposed initiative ordinance or adopts an ordinance which is
similar in substance, or if the Council repeals a referred ordinance, the
initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or
referred ordinance shall not be submitted to the voters."
Balmer stated that he believes that initiative proposals should be submitted
to voters at regular City elections only. Ringgenberg explained that
submitting proposals at city elections could delay the opportunity for voters
to decide the issue for over a year. Members indicated approval of inserting
°'business ",in front of "days" in Sections 7.04A and 7.048. Karr explained
/SOS
that petitions need to be filed with the City Clerk's office early enough to
allow validation of signatures prior to the required deadline for ballot
issues to be received by the Commissioner of Elections. Publication of the
required petition submission date was discussed. Karr reported Jansen
indicated that there could be a problem with the City being responsible for
advertising the dates for accepting petitions. The Charter Review Commission
discussed possible impact on the charter of a submission date Section 7.020,
7.02E, 7,03D and 7.03E.
Berlin noted that for general and regular elections, submission of petitions
could be required a particular number of days before the election. Balmer
and Berlin noted that Section 7.058 permits the City Council to call for
special referendum elections. Davidsen suggested setting a date for submis-
sion of initiative and referendum petitions that matches the deadline for
ballot issues as stated in state code. Ringgenberg noted that for both
initiative and referendum issues, when a petition is submitted shortly before
a general or regular election, the charter could be changed to allow the City
Council to either set a date for a special election or direct staff to
certify the petition in time for the general or regular election, The
Charter Review Commission agreed to model the initiative and referendum
petition procedure after state ballot issues. Commission requested legal add
and expand 7.020 and 7.02E to provide language similar to the State Code re
ballot issues and review 7,058 for possible changes, if needed. Berlin
registered concern re business days being used in the charter and State
language used in 7.02D and 7.02E which does not refer to business days.
David
Legal will review. sen asked if initiative should be added to 7.058 to
allow for special elections. Karr will review wording with Legal and make
recommendations to the Commission on exact wording in Sections 7,030 and E.
Commission reviewed Section 7.038 Form and Content. Karr noted that Jansen
recommends against including addit ona in orma on on th
verifying more e initiative and
referendum petitions because of the increase of money and time involved
information. In respcnse to Baldus' Karr will contact the
county about the types of lists available for verifying petitions. The
Commission recommended requiring name and address on petitions with Social
Contenty numbers
decidedrnotltoradd� either sentence for7Sectionrm and
from ansen's recommendations and the City Clerk's July 9 memo, In reference
to petition filing date option B, Berlin asked if it allows enough time to
satisfy state legal requirements. Legal will check whether option B
(inserting the word "business" prior to days in text) satisfies state
requirements.
Other Discussion
Council agreed to discuss campaign finance disclosure and voting districts at
their next meeting.
Karr stated that the library will furnish the civic organizations list in
time for the next CRC meeting, The public heard; committee will prepare
letters informing the civic organizations, former Council members, and former
Council candidates of dates of future public hearings.
/,SD.S
3
Mintzer raised concerns about campaign finances including the lack of
penalties for violations, public disclosure, and charter enforcement.
Commission requested that Mintzer write specific recommendations for discus-
sion at the next meeting.
Baidus requested an update on financial disclosure and contribution limita-
tions from the City legal staff.
Berlin said that Jansen wishes to avoid advocating any particular position on
campaign financing but he will respond to particular questions or concerns.
The next Charter Review Commission meeting will be July 23. Meeting ad-
journed at 9:25 p.m.
/SOS
P�,,(t)
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMi1SSION
SEPTEMBER 17, 1984
Charter Review Commission: September 17, 1984, at 7:30 p.m, to the Confer-
ence oam at t e v c enter. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: Goodwin, Ringgenberg, Balmer, Matsumoto, Mintzer,
avr sea . Absent: Roberts, Baldus, Welt.
Staff Present: Melling, Karr, Boyle, Smith.
Tape-recorded: Reel 5 -84, Side 2, 253 -End; Reel 6 -84, Side 1, alt, Side 2,
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, and introduced
Iowa City Councilmember Larry Baker. Minutes of the July 9, 1984, meting
were approved as read.
Balmer introduced Dick Boyle, the Assistant City Attorney. Boyle noted that
he has reviewed the charter and made specific comments on campaign financing
and plebiscites on zoning matters in his September 13th memo. Boyle ex-
plained that no State law provisions exist stating deadlines for filing
election petitions before primary elections. The deadlines for filing
election petitions for Statewide and legislative offices are 60 days and 55
days respectively. Boyle advised that it isn't appropriate to use business
days' in a legislative document and would be better to extend the nimber of
days. Karr stated that time limits can be recommended but noted the City
Council may direct staff to accept petitions within shorter time frames.
Karr's memo recommended adding 10 -15 days. Balmer requested proposed changes
be inserted into the charter for review by the Commission at the next
meeting. In response to Balmer, Karr explained that a draft of proposed
administrative changes to be acted upon by the City Council has been pre-
pared. The Charter Review Commission needs to recommend what changes should
be acted upon by the City Council and what changes should be recommended by
the Charter Review Commission to go before the voters.
Balmer said that Article 6, Council Districts, and initiative and referendum
.questions should be further discussed by the Charter Review Commission. Boyle
recommended minor changes in the wording in charter section 6.01 and 6.04
changing •campaign expenditures' to 'campai n contributions.* In response to
Davidsen, Boyle said that section.7.01.8(1)(k) need not be changed.
Karr reported that more information for initiative and referendum petition
signature validation can be obtained from the county for a basic set
up /programming fee. Commission members discussed requiring name, address,
and a birthdate on the petition. Mintzer noted that requiring a social
security number would be an invasion of privacy. Boyle said that if name,
address, and btrthdate is used, all three may be required to be correct to
have a valid signature. Karr suggested requiring name and address with
btrthdate being optional. Boyle stated that nominating petitions only
require names and address. Karr noted that working with more information
would be time consuming for staff. Matsumoto suggested requiring signature,
address, and date and require any other information by way of Council enacted
ordinance. This would authorize the City Council to try different require-
ments to make the procedure easier. Boyle said that he would draft language
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISa ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 1984
PAGE 2
for the charter authorizing the Council to require information for verifica-
tion purposes. Ringgenberg stated that petitions need to be filled out
legibly.
Commission members will discuss council districts at the next Charter Review
Commission meeting.
Mintzer stated that the City lacks ordinances in accordance with Section 6 of
the charter. Mintzer reviewed his July 13th memo and Jansen's May 23rd memo
regarding Article 6. Mintzer stated there is a question as to how much
candidates should disclose and recommended adding language to 6.02 requiring
full campaign contribution disclosure, including in- kind gifts. Commission
members discussed disclosure of dollar minimums. In response to Mintzer,
Balmer said the current Section 6.02. is reasonable as written. In response
to Councilman Baker, Boyle stated that the City Code Chapter 10 $10 or more
disclosure requirement has been repeated and the State Code requires re-
porting contributions of $25 or more. The charter could be more restrictive
than the State law. The City could reinstitute the $10 requirement. Karr
noted questions about the value of garage sale items. Davidsen encouraged the
Commission to review charter Section 6 and discuss it at the next meeting.
Mintzer stated a number six should be added to page three of this July 13th
memo, noting the $10 versus $25 discrepancy. Also, Mintzer, pointed out that
the different definitions of the term - 'political committee' (Mintzer's July
13th memo, page 3, number 1) includes differing dollar amounts i.e. State
Code uses $250 versus old City Code using $100. Boyle referred Mintzer to
Chapter 56.6, 33.2 of the State Code. Balmer said that the charter doesn't
and shouldn't state specific dollar amounts for disclosure. Balmer said the
City Council had been concerned about duplicative reporting when Chapter 10
was repealed. Mintzer stated that duplicity can be resolved as recommended
in his July 13th memo.
In response to Mintzer, Boyle stated that any violations of the City Code is
a misdemeanor leadfng to penalties of $100 or 30 days in jail. He also
stated that he is unsure if there is anything in the State taw that calls for
the removal of a Councilmember for violation of campaign contribution
disclosure. Balmer noted that he does not know of problems locally with
car sign contribution disclosure and adequate disclosure provisions exist.
Mintzer recommended reviewing the original Chapter 10 -22, the new ordinance,
Chapter 56 of the State Code, and the charter. Davidson inquired about the
clause 'consistent with State Code' in Charter Section 6.04. Ringgenberg
said the clause may not be needed. Matsumoto said -the Commission should
decide upon 'a campaign contribution disclosure policy before sanctions are
decided upon. Mintzer recommended including penalties for violations of
campaign contribution disclosure in the charter. Matsumoto said that the
Commission could consider putting some sanctions in the charter and leaving
other sanctions up to the City Council. Goodwin noted a Daily Iowan article
about the Mintzer memo and requested better coordinat -press � releases.
Copies of the article will be distributed to members prior to the next
meeting.
Mintzer requested demographic information (age, income, and race) about
voting districts. Matsumoto said the Commission should be concerned with the
effects of districting on minorities.
19"
CHARTER CO
SEPTEMBER REVIEW 1984MIS_'J4
PAGE 3
announcing discussed waterebills. Karr
distributing adnouncementsfin the University dormitory mailboxes.e Rini ionband
suggested holding two types of he dings siono ndtabletin formal he croundtable
a formal public hearing.
discussions and public
hearings November 98 tc l
aidsen and Ringg enbrgwillraft aletter to be sent toomnuniyorgan-
zations, and City Councilmembers and candidates as listed in the September
listlof4organizationd and beer prepared g o deoletesorna do to theolistat the
next meeting. The draft leaf rtwillcharo be reviewed at the leitermeealmer,
Mintzer requested a copy
about broadcastingithegformal publiclhearing on the 26th.i1 contact cable TV
He encouragedcalliCRC Commission Rmembers n t attend the meetingctober I .
1984.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
/?,a
r_
Ll
Charter Review Commission
October 15. 1984
Charter Review Commission: October 15, 1984, 7:30 p,m, in the Conference
oom at the ivic enter, Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: Mintzer, Welt, Baldus, Goodwin, Balmer, Davidsen,
Matsumoto. sent: Roberts. Staff Present: Karr, Boyle,-Smith,
Tape Recorded: Reel 8 -84, Side 1, 72 -End, Side 2, All; 09 -84, Side 1, 1 -132.
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at .7:30 p.m. Mintzer stated
that he did not receive a Charter Review Commission packet in the mail.
Baldus noted his appreciation for the well written Charter Review Commission
minutes. The minutes of the October 3, 1984 meeting were approved as read.
Section 2.063
Ringgenberg said the previous Charter Review Commission's intent was to
strengthen the role and power of the mayor. Boyle stated that the State Code
was amended in 1975 to read "the mayor may not veto a measure if the mayor
was entitled to vote on 'the measure at the time of passage." Commission
members agreed that the veto power should be deleted from the charter to be
consistent with the State Code. Balmer said the change should be made by
City Council.
Districts
Mintzer and Balmer requested census information broken down into each
precinct. Mintzer %analyzed voter registration from last November's election
noted that 52 of
Mint er raised concerns tthato candidates s representing studentseawould have
difficulty getting elected with at -large elections because their constituency
is located within one area. Mintzer also noted that a person could lose in
their own district but became representative of that district elected by the
whole city in the general election Mintzer suggested that three districts
be self - electing- persons representing the district be voted into office by
people in their own districts.
Baldus stated that the current districting system is a compromise between
said representation only by at lare. Balmer
dthatthereexists district a misunderstanding n i
g of the electilon /districting system
and that clarifying language should help. Ringgenberg said that the current
system was set up so as to guarantee some representation for each area of the
City. Baldus noted that people identified themselves in common interests
within their own neighborhood. Balmer stated that a district representation
noted that the people narrowly edo at �largeh aved ato braad current
and system. e responsive
to everyone throughout lava City. Davidsen was concerned that a strict
district system would augment specific geographic interests that may not
benefit the entire city. Matsumoto said that students may feel more a part
of the community if a different representation system were set up. Commis-
sion members discussed Baldus's suggestion to have voters decide how their
i,%
Charter Review Comm' -ion
October 15, 1984
Page 2
district will be represented - by district or at -large representation,
,unmission members will continue discussion on districting at their next
meeting,
Campaign Contributions
The Charter Review Commission reviewed the memo from Matsumoto re: campaign
financing. Matsumoto noted that Chapter 66 in the State Code contains a
removal provision of violations.
In response to Davidsen, Balmer explained that a candidate's campaign can
spend an unlimited amount but individual contributions are limited. Candi-
dates for City Council have to comply with state law.
Matsumoto said that Chapter 56 of the State Code contains two provisions for
penalties: 1) a criminal penalty, a serious misdemeanor for local violations
and 2) the State Elections Commission can impose civil penalties. Also, State
Code Chapter 66 contains a provision for removal of officials from local
office if there is; a conviction for a violation of Chapter 56. In response
to Baldus, Boyle said there was a civil penalty invoked against the David
Stanley organization. Commission members discussed the need for a charter
provision stating penalties for campaign contribution violations. Ringgenberg
said that state law provisions did not exist when the charter was estab-
lished. Ringgenberg stated that charter provisions may not be needed because
state law now contains penalty provisions for violations of campaign contri-
butions.
Mintzer asked if there should be limitations on individual contributions. If
there should be limitations, Mintzer stated that Section 6 should be re-
tained. Baldus suggested that the charter could contain a penalty provision
that would tie in local penalties with the dollar amount o. the applicable
state penalty. Baldus also suggested that a penalty fine could be devised
from the percentage of the amount of money spent on a campaign. Balmer
stated that Jansen's May 23, 1984 memo said that charter Sections 6.02 and
6.04 could be deleted because it is addressed by state law. Balmer said that
charter Section 6.01 could be retained with additional language stating that
disclosures are covered by state law. In response to Baldus, Boyle stated
that tighter restrictions for the City Council would not necessarily be
needed but would serve as a good guidance.
Balmer suggested that Commission members review Section 6. Mintzer said he
will further research campaign contribution provisions, write language, and
report back to the commission at the next meeting.
Initiative and Referendum
The Charter Review Commission reviewed two drafts of the charter Section
7.04. Boyle explained that draft BI provides for optional review by the City
Clerk. A filed petition is forwarded to the City Council, If no one
questions the validity of the signature, the Council will proceed to act on
it without the City Clerk's review, This draft provides a.mechanism for City
Charter Review Con. ,sion
October 15, 1904
Page 3
Council to direct the City Clerk to go through the certification process. In
response to Balmer, Boyle stated that an individual would still have recourse
through the courts when questioning the validity of signatures.
The 82 draft removes all references of certification of signatures by the
City Clerk. Baldus asked how a valid signature will be identified and who
will make the determination, In reference to charter Section 7.04.13, Baldus
said it is unclear if the C"ty Clerk has the discretion to determine valid
signatures. Boyle said that charter Section 7.04.8 should read "B. validity
of Petition. A petition shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of this
article if it contains signatures..."
Balmer said that petitioners should have the responsibility for valid
signatures when introducing significant legislation. Boyle stated that
current charter provisions minimizes potential court challenges. Commission
members discussed the burden of proof when challenging petition signatures.
Balmer said that City Clerk certification of signatures insulates the process
from court challenges. Baldus suggested having City Clerk certification but
with more relaxed standards. Balmer said public input should be received.
The Charter Review Commission will review draft B1', B2 and the September 27
memo and discuss initiative and referendum at the next meeting.
Mintzer referred to charter Section 7.03.E and said that a referendum
petition cannot be filed for two years against ordinances passed by the City
Council. Commission members discussed the impact of being able to change
Council enactments before the two year requirement.
Other Business
The Charter Review Commission approved the draft of the October 11, 1984
notification letter. Karr said the letter will be sent out Tuesday or
Wednesday.
Commission members reviewed the sample ad and costs of the advertisement.
Only the November 26 public hearing date, will be in the ad. Charter Review
Commission members decided to run ads in the Press - Citizen and DI on November
19, 1984. The cost of the ad is budgeted through the City Clerk's office.
Karr will contact KRUI, KCJJ, KXIC and KRNA radio stations regarding public
service announcements. Announcements are currently being run on cablevision
and are on the back of City water billings. Balmer will contact newspapers
regarding articles.
The next Charter Review Commission meeting will be held October 29 in the
Council Chambers. Baldus requested a draft of the major issues for Charter
Review Commission discussion and distribution to the newspapers and public
prior to the public hearing.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
/..
Charter Review Commission
October-29, 1984
Charter Review Commission: October 29, 1984, 7:30 p.m. in the Council
am ers a e vtc en er. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: Mintzer, Goodwin, Balmer, Davidsen, Matsumoto, Roberts,
inggen erg, sent: Welt, Baldus.
Staff Present: Karr, Melling, Smith.
Tape-recorded: Reel 9 -84, Side 1, 132 -End, Side 2, all, Reel 10 -84, Side 1,
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of
the October 15; 1984, meeting were approved as read.
DISTRICTING:
Roberts suggested four district representatives and three at -large represen-
tatives and that districts should be able to vote for their own representa-
tive and not be elected by the entire city. Roberts raised concerns that a
person favored by a district may actually win in that district and not be
elected in the general election by the whole city and that persons elected to
represent a district may actually move into that district to qualify,
Goodwin suggested establishing a residency time requirement a person must
live within a district to be elected as a representative of that district.
Balmer said he is to favor of retaining the currently used districting
system.
Ringgenberg stated the Charter Review Commission needs to analyze district
representatives vs. at -large representation, confusion by the voters, and the
concept that a vote is given more weight when a voter only votes for one
person. Davidsen said the Commission needs to consider the solidity and
population make -up of the districts.
'Matsumoto inquired about the impact of geographic issues (such as land use
and the allocation of municipal services) on Council voting. Balmer said
that councils have• looked at issues in broad community terms although
specific neighborhood concerns exist. In response to Roberts, Ringgenberg
explained the original charter was set up to insure representation for every
part of Iowa City. Mintzer said the present districting neglects the student
constituency. Balmer and Matsumoto felt the present system does not disen-
franchise students. Davidsen noted that the present districting does not
seem to impact voting issues that come before the Council and that societal
issues have more of an impact on Council voting.
Mintzer reviewed Charter Art. VIII and stated that several amendments can be
put on the ballot. Karr noted that several questions re the Charter could
appear on the ballot but they should be grouped to avoid a question passing
that was dependent on another question which did not.
Karr noted that Boyle's September 27 memo recommended additional language to
clarify districting. Balmer said the Charter Review Commission will further
discuss districting once public input is received.
�jaS.Z
Charter Review Commission
October 29, 1984
Page 2
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:
Mintzer reviewed the different campaign contribution regulations of the State
-Code, City ordinance, and Charter. Mintzer said the Charter should contain
limitations on contributions, disclosure requirements, and enforcement of the
limitation and disclosure requirements. The disclosure requirements would
tell if the limitations are being followed, inform the public about the
candidates, and deter actual corruption. Mintzer supports a full disclosure
policy. Enforcement would make sure the disclosure and limitation require-
ments are followed and would gain public trust. Mintzer suggested that
pre - election disclosure could be enforced by not allowing a name on the
ballot if there were disclosure violations by that person.
Balmer said that punishment should fit the crime Balmer inquired if it
i
would be legal to remove a name from a ballot f there were disclosure
violations. Balmer said a disclosure statement should be in the Charter but
addressed as it is being handled now and in conformance with State law.
Davidsen said that she doesn't agree with the City Attorney's recommendation
to delete Charter 6.02 requiring disclosure statements. Mintzer said
disclosures could be handled in a variety of ways, including filing only with
the State, filing with the State and City, filing with the City and the City
could forward the disclosure information to the State, and /or the City could
use the same forms as the State uses. If the City requires more information
(such as requiring disclosure of $10 and above), you could file the addi-
tional information in a State filing and the City would have access to that
information. Balmer felt dollar amounts should not be stated in the Charter
but should be left to Council discretion. Davldsen explained that dollar
amounts were not in the original Charter because they would became out of
date due to inflation and the Charter was meant to'provide guidelines to the
City Council. Mintzer said that setting a minimum disclosure amount would
still allow the Council some flexibility. Ringgenberg said there 1s an
element of trust with regard to fulfilling the disclosure requirements.
Matsumoto said if the City is going to have independent sanctions apart from
the State, the City will have to have their own substantive regulations.
There could be a problem of pre- emption if the City goes to a more stringent
sanction or disclosure structure. Matsumoto said it is important to have an
independent regulating structure with an independent 'sanction structure.
Davldsen reviewed the State penalties for violations: misdemeanor, fines, or
removal from office. Mintzer said there has to be a conviction of a viola-
tion of Chapter 56 of the State Code for there to be a removal from office.
State Code Chapter 66, Section 7, lists what action can cause a person to be
removed from office. Mintzer said the Charter should contain a disclosure
.policy and enforcement penalties. The penalties could be forfeiture of an
amount to addition to the limitation with an additional fine. Mintzer said
there could also be prosecution under State law. Mintzer said the Charter
Review Commission needs to consider what the penalty should be for violations
of the limitations and disclosure requirements. Matsumoto said the City
can't tack penalties for failure to disclose onto State laws. The City needs
an independent pre - election disclosure requirement. The withdrawal of a name
on the ballot would be an incentive to get the disclosure statement in on
time. Matsumoto said a municipal disclosure date may need to be required
Charter Review Co. ssion
October 29, 1984
Page 3
sooner than the five day State requirement to allow time to actually remove a
name from the ballot. Davidsen said that post election disclosure is more
important. Mintzer said that disclosure could be tied to the nominating
process - disclosure requirements must be met to become an official candi-
date. Mintzer said it is important to get full disclosure before the elec-
tion. Matsumoto suggested imposing heavy fines as an incentive to disclo-
sure.
Balmer said the Commission will continue discussing campaign contributions at
the next meeting and asked Charter Review Commission members and City staff
to submit written recommendations for alternatives. Ringgenberg suggested
contacting other municipalities about their campaign contribution policies.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM:
Balmer said the validation of signatures by the City Clerk's office insulates
the process from court challenges. Matsumoto said he is inclined to go with
a more simplified structure. Mintzer suggested using draft B1 but removing
Section E (Court Review). Karr stated Court Review is currently in the
Charter 7.04C. The Charter Review Commission agreed to continue with the
present language amended by the additional day requirements per staff request.
MEETINGS:
Commission members agreed that the current seating arrangement in the
Chambers is suitable for the roundtable discussion scheduled November 12th.
Balmer will make introductory remarks at the roundtable discussion, the
Commission wilt receive public input, and the Commission will hold a brief
discussion. Karr said there have not been any written responses submitted.
Balmer said he has been in contact with the newspapers and KCJJ regarding the
Charter Review Commission meetings.
Balmer stated that the formal public hearing scheduled November 26 will be
cabtecast and he would send a letter to the editor to area newspapers. The
Commission will make final decisions about the Charter after the public
hearing. Davidsen gave Balmer a sample handout that could be used by the
Charter Review Commission. Roberts suggested a statement of issues should be
distributed to the public at the public hearing. Ringgenberg requested the
minutes be an outline of the comments received at the public hearing and not
a transcript. Balmer will work the clerk re these items.
Helling said that a statement of the issues could be run on cable TV commu-
nity channel prior to the public hearing meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for Novembet 12, 1984.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
0?07 S.Z
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COhkMISS10N
NOVEMBER 12, 1984
Charter Review Commission: November 12, 1984, 7:35 PM in the Council
Chambers at the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
COMMISSION PRESENT: Mintzer, Goodwin, Balmer, Matsumoto, Welt, Baldus
COMMISSION ABSENT: Davidsen, Roberts, Ringgenberg
STAFF PRESENT: Karr, Smith, Boyle (8:40 PM), Melling (8:50 PM).
Tape recorded: Reel 10 -84, Side 1, 339 -End, Side 2, All, Reel 11 -84, Side
1, All.
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Balmer reviewed
the October 15, 1984 Charter Review Commission meeting. Karr stated that
she had contacted the League of Municipalities regarding campaign contri-
butions. The League said that there are only two other cities in the State
of Iowa with home rule charters and neither charter addresses campaign
disclosure. Commission members agreed that the October 15, 1984 Charter
Review Commission- minutes, page 3, Initiative and Referendum, should be
amended to read 'The Charter Review Commission agreed to continue with the
present language amended by the additional day requirements per staff
request." lire October 15, 1984 minutes were approved as amended.
No one appeared for the roundtable discussion /public hearing.
Balmer said he announced the Charter Review Conmission public hearing and
activities on KCJJ, wrote a letter to the editor of the Press - Citizen, and
will be interviewed on the Dottie Ray Show. A Charter Review Commission
announcement is on the back of water billings. Karr reported that no
written responses have been received from the 125 letters sent.
In response to Welt, Balmer said the current districting has worked the
way the original Charter Review Commission envisioned, although there may
be problems with the residency requirement.
Commission members discussed Low and when charter amendments should be
submitted to the voters. Mintzer noted that charter section 8.02 states
'The Council shall submit such amendments to the voters in the form
prescribed by the Commission...' Baldus said there would be more voter
participation and less cost if amendments were submitted in a general
election. Karr said elections cost an estimated $10,000.
Baldus said districting should be on the ballot to allow people to make a
choice to retain the current provision or change it. Baldus explained the
original charter was voted on by subsections rather than in its entirety.
Goodwin requested a copy of the ballot for the original charter. Karr
explained that any recommendations from the Charter Review Commission must
go to the voters on the ballot and administrative changes from the City
Manager, Legal Department or /and City Clerk's office can be taken care of
in house. Mintzer asked how changes in Mayor's veto powers, the filing of
referendum petitions, and submitting amendments will be handled. Balmer
said the Mayor's veto power should be a housekeeping change because it
07.75.2-
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1904
PAGE 2
conflicted with State law. Mintzer suggested amending charter Article
VIII to allow the Charter Review Commission to send recommended actions to
the City Council for adoption and if the Council doesn't enact within 30
days, it would go to the voters.. Mintzer said that the Charter Review
Commission could ask the Council to enact the suggested provisions soon to
allow changes to be made by the Council without going through administra-
tive recommendations. Baldus said the current system works well and that
only issues that people can identify with and understand should go on the
ballot. Balmer requested the City Attorney develop language in Charter
article section 8.02 allowing Council adoption of recommended technical
changes from the Charter Review Commission.
Welt said voters should be allowed to vote on districting. Balmer said it
is important how it is worded on the ballot. Baldus said people should be
giv -n two options: voting to retain the present system or voting to elect
Council members from within each district. Welt noted that the original
Charter Review Commission thought the present districting system would
give students better representation than a ward system.
Welt said he couldn't suggest any changes to the present initiative and
referendum provisions because there have not been any problems. In
response to Mintzer, Balmer said a recommendation for validation of
signatures, allowing the City Council to adopt additional measures, will
be forwarded to the City Council. Baldus said the issue is whether or not
students are disenfranchised by having too stringent requirements for
validation of signatures.. Baldus said the issue should be resolved by a
technical amendment. Karr noted that a September 27 memo had recommended
language for charter article section 7.03.8 that was amended by the
Charter Review Commission to read "Signatures shall be deemed valid unless
it is illegible or is not genuine and not voluntarily and knowingly
executed.« Karr said illegibility becomes a problem men the name cannot
be read but the address can be read. Also, there are problems if the
voters have moved'., Baldus said provisions should not be too restrictive.
Baldus asked if a signature is valid if a person omits any part of the
requested information. Balmer said additional information should be used
only if a signature cannot be validated with the information available.
Baldus recommended inserting 'request' in place of 'require' inthe 9/27
memo re charter article section 7.03.8. Mintzer suggested requiring the
petition form to have spaces for signature, address, date and any other
information needed for validity of signatures.. Baldus suggested adding a
provision that failure to provide such information shall not be in itself
a basis for invalidating the signature. Mintzer suggested that only a
minimum match of information (such as name and address) is needed to
validate a signature. The Charter Review Commission agreed to change
.require' to 'request« in the 9 127memo re charter article section 7.03.8
and will continue to consider initiative and referendum as a potential
ballot issue. -
Balmer said the three issues are districting, initiative and referendum,
and campaign contributions. Regarding campaign contributions, Balmer said
charter article section 6.01 should be retained and there should be an
aas.z
,_k
CHARTER REVIEW COMMiiSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1984
PAGE 3
acknowledgement of disclosure in article section 6.02. Asst. City Atty.
Boyle will provide the Charter Review Commission with alternative language
for 6.01.
Baldus said the public should be informed about the proposals that may be
placed on the ballot to stimulate input about the issues. Karr said the
three issues were included in the letters that were sent out.
Asst. City Atty.•Boyle arrived 8:40 p.m.
Boyle said that changing 'shall" to "may" in the first line of charter
article section 6.02 would bring the present ordinance into compliance and
give Council direction. Boyle explained that "shall" imposes a duty and
"may" confers a power. Balmer suggested - stipulating that disclosure
requirements are no less than State law.
Karr was informed by the elections office that ballots are sent to the
printers one day after the filing deadline. Changes in the ballots incur
additional costs.' Boyle noted that absentee ballots create problems in
the timing of changing ballots.
In response to Balmer, Boyle stated that the present charter article 6.04
is allowable although not strictly in accordance with State law. Boyle
stated that if a person is convicted of the contribution limitations under
State law, that person could lose their rights to serve on the Council.
Balmer requested a recommendation from Boyle about rewording article
section 6.04. Matsumoto noted that State Code 66.29 provides that Council
can remove a City official 'or violation of State law. Boyle said the
issue is whether the Council can remove a City official for violation of a
City ordinance. Mintzer said he is not happy with the present article 6
and that a provision could be added that states the City by ordinance
shall have some disclosure requirements on contributions and expenditures.
Balmer said the importance of disclosure should be acknowledged in the
charter. Baldus said that if the Charter Review Commission thinks the
State law is adequate, the disclosure provision should be removed. Balmer
noted that there was consensus on the City Council regarding the amounts
of disclosure. Mintzer said there should be a disclosure requirement if
there is a unique limitation and once you have a disclosure statement, you
need to have a penalty. Balmer said that there hasn't been any problems
and the State requirements are very exactive,
In response. to Goodwin, Baldus said the original Charter Review Commission
voted on what issues should go on the ballot.
Baldus said that each district should decide for itself if they want
district representation and it is extremely important that students feel
they are represented by the local government.
The next meeting will be the formal public hearing on November 26 and will
be cable broadcast.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
a? asz
Charter Review Commission
November 26, 1984
Charter Review Commission: November 16, 1984, 7:30 p.m, in the Council
Chambers at the C v c Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: Mintzer, Goodwin, Balmer, Matsumoto, Welt, Baldus,
Davi send , Roberts, Ringgenberg.
Staff Present: Karr, Boyle, Smith.
Tape Recorded: Reel 11 -84, Side 2, All, 12 -84, Side 1, All.
Balmer declared the public hearing in session and introduced the members of
the Charter Review Commission. The Commission would like public input and
any amendments proposed by the Commission would be decided upon by the
voters. Balmer explained that the public hearing discussion is not limited
to Council districting, initiative and referendum, or campaign contributions.
Moved by Davidsen, seconded by Welt, to accept correspondence from Iowa City
Mayor John McDonald. Roberts stated he didn't appreciate receiving an
official letter from the Mayor's office and that McDonald should have 'written
a letter as a concerned citizen. Balmer explained that input was solicited
from past and current Councilmembers. Motion passed unanimously.
Karen Kubby, representing the local chapter of the Iowa Socialists Party,
stated that the role of the City Manager should be changed to decentralize
the power concentrated in the City Manager's position. Two ways to
decentralize that power. are to make the City Manager an elected position and
to decrease the responsibility of the City Manager, Kubby also recommended
that the Initiative and referendum signatures requirement to be changed to
'qualified voters or qualified electors' and that 4000 signatures be re-
quired. The changes would still maintain the original intent of the charter
but would make the signature requirement more feasible. In response to
Baldus, Karr said that only a small percentage of signatures were disquali-
fied due to illegibility. Baldus said the Commission is considering a change
so that the address of the signator would not have to match Ue address that
was attached to voter registration. Balmer said the Commission had discussed
changing the responsibility for the validation of signatures but ultimately
felt the validation of signatures by the City Clerk should be retained.
Davidsen noted that the Commission wanted to retain 'qualified' but wanted to
be less stringent with matching the address. Baldus explained the Commission
decided to give the City Council the discretion to require certain additional
information on the petition. In response to Mintzer, Balmer said the
Commission needs to discuss changing 'qualified' to 'eligible'.
Larry Baker stated that the charter should require a full and open disclosure
of all campaign contributions - down to the smallest amounts. Baker noted .
arguments that full disclosure of campaign contributions may complicate
recordkeeping and may discourage some people from making contributions.
Balmer said the City is presently operating under the State Code 425 disclo-
sure requirement. Baker said that a problem with the current disclosure is
that a great many of the candidates list contributions under miscellaneous.
Balmer said the specific dollar amount for disclosure should be decided upon
by the City Council and that the Council presently has the power to enact
full disclosure. Mintzer stated the charter requires that there be an
,, 3 30
ordinance regarding disclosure and there is currently is not such an ordi-
nance. Mintzer said if there is a disclosure requirement, an enforcement
provision needs to be added. Davidsen said that an enforcement mechanism for
full disclosure is a difficult problem. In response to Baker, Matsumoto said
that there are no City code provisions for disclosure violations, under state
code a willful violation constitutes a serious misdemeanor, which could
potentially result in removal from office; and the State Elections Commission
has promulgated a set of administrative and that define certain monetary
penalties. Boyle commented on the delinquency penalty for violations under
State Code, Chapter 56. Balmer said there is a problem with fitting the
penalty with the crime. Roberts stated that full disclosure should provide a
means for handling contributions made anonymously. Baker commented that full
disclosure should include in -kind contributions. .Ringgenberg inquired if
there exists problems under the present law. Kubby stated she would like
full disclosure including in -kind contributions and it is important for
voters to decide upon tha enforcement recommendations.
Balmer stated that another issue is districting and whether district candi-
dates should be voted on strictly by qualified electors of that district.
Balmer noted that in the present system a primary election is held if more
than two candidates are running for a district seat and that only qualified
electors of the district vote. in the general election all qualified
electors vote for district seats. Commission members need to decide if they
should propose an amendment on the ballot to change the current system to
allow district candidates to be voted upon only by voters in the district or
to allow voters to reaffirm the present system. Davidsen reviewed the
current system, stating there are seven Councilmembers: four at -large and
three elected by districts. Every two years two Councilmembers are elected
at -large and two Councilmembers are elected by district and every other two
years two are elected at -large and one from the district. Ringgenberg said
that previously a five member Council existed and when the original charter
was initiated, there was public interest in enlarging the size of the Council
and in assuring representation from all parts of the City.
Mintzer said he received the following input from people who could not attend
the public hearing: it was recommended that a ward system be used due to
voter confusion and student disenfranchisement, a move toward a ward system
would be progressive, and the Charter Review Commission should recommend that
a ward system be voted upon and passed. Balmer explained that the original
charter established the present at large/district representation system to
assure representation throughout the City and that voter confusion could be
resolved through clarification and education. Roberts said a problem with
the present system is that a candidate could win in his own district but lose
his bid for a seat on the Council in the general election. Roberts said that
people within their districts should vote for their representative. Kubby
said that there should be at large representation for the whole city and
district seats to ensure that there are people accountable to each district.
Baker stated that if the Commission considers district representation, then
they should also consider district realignment. Balmer explained that
districting was done on a population basis. Davidsen said the current
districts are heterogeneous and that reapportionment should not became an
issue. Mintzer said gerrymandering includes 'busting' or "blocking'. Busting
splits up candidates so much that a specific group cannot elect anyone and
blocking (grouping all of a specific segment of the population in the
0330
�"7J!. �t �y� �w t ♦�l..0 c , }.=(`5 31 Y } i . R y s.3 � .Eb S.J�Y&vr rFx�"+ha- — tiiQ as'dlG+sS��� "ik
district) guarantees at least one seat on the Council for that group.
Davidsen said the original Charter Review Commission divided Iowa City into
equal parts based on population. Baker suggested adding more district
representatives and only having two or three at large representatives.
Mintzer said that if a primary system is used, there should be candidates
with differing viewpoints and voters should have a choice between different
people. Balmer stated that a strict districting system would be too paro-
chial. Roberts noted that the Charter Review Commission will determine what
to put on the ballot for the electorate to decide. Balmer said language on
the ballot is crucial. Balmer reminded everyone that proposed amendinents to
the charter will go on the ballot on the 1985 general election.
Meeting Schedule and Other Information
The Charter Review Commission will meet November 29, 7:30 p.m., December 1,
8:30 a.m., and December 10, 7:30 p.m. Balmer requested the Charter Review
Commission and staff draft proposed language for the ballot.
in response to Mintzer, Boyle stated that a memo has been prepared regarding
the charter Article VI campaign contributions enforcement. The City cannot
remove anyone from the Council for violation. There are provisions in the
State Code that limit penalties to $100 or 30 days in jail. Boyle also
prepared a draft of Article VI disclosure provisions. Karr stated she will
revise drafts of the changes as discussed by the Commission.
Balmer thanked the public for attending the public hearing and adjourned at
th,: public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
4,3-40
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
!!C'''EHBER 29, 1984
Charter Review Commission: November 29, 1984, 7:35 PH in the Council
Chambers at the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission present: Balmer, Goodwin, Matsumoto, Welt, Baldus, Davidsen,
Roberts, Mintzer (7:41 PH).
Absent: Ringgeaberg
Staff present: Karr, Boyle, Smith
Tape recorded: Reel 12 -84, Side 1, 344 -End, Side 2, All, 13 -84, Side 1,
1 -364.
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The November
12th Charter Review Commission minutes were approved as read. Commission
members commented on the lack of attendance at the public '-__.ing.
Charter Review Commission reviewed thu draft of administrative changes
from staff. Boyle stated he has reviewed the charter to its entirety and
that he would suggest Council not act on the new clarifying language in
Section 303 'However, all qualified electors...' if districting will be a
ballot issue. Commission members said the clarifying language should be
retained, even if districting 1s a ballot issue.
With respect to initiative and and referendum, Baldus said there exists a
problem when the address of a person signing a petition differs from that
person's address on the voting rolls. Baldus suggested that a signature
should not be deemed invalid merely because the qualified elector's
address on the petition is different from the qualified elector's address
on the current voting rolls. Also there should be an incentive for the
Council to get other information for verification of signature. In
response to Baidvs, Boyle said a person is a qualified elector if their
current address is the same as on the voter registration rolls. Balmer
stated that the problem of signatur^ validation would be alleviated by
obtaining more information. Karr said there is a problem with knowing if
a person has just moved or if the signature 1s from a different person
with the same name and that presently only a name and address are ob-
tained. Mintzer suggested changing 'qualified• to 'oligtble'. After
discussion, Commission members agreed not to change qualified' to
'eligible'. Balmer said the present validation of signatures provision
should be retained and noted that if the proper number of valid signatures
are not obtained, there is an opportunity to file additional signatures.
Baldus said the present system is biased against people who move. Baldus
suggested rewording Section 7.03.8, second sentence, to read 'Each
signature on the petition must be followed by the address of the person
signing, the date of the signature and either their blrthdate or social
security number...'. Boyle said that language would need to be added to
Section 7.04.D so that a different address alone would not disqualify a
qualified elector. Davidsen said charter definition 17 (preamble defini-
tions) would need to state 'except as modified by Section 7.03 and 7.04.'
Boyle said he would research 'qualified voter' and suggest language
revisions for the next meeting.
a83O
11 J ({
ysi'4� s Z § /,frFri4 3Yromdu N r r xa Mrt yr r.t3i ✓t jt?
Charter Review Commission
November 29, 1984
Page 2
Balmer inquired about adding a provision in the charter that would allow
the Charter Review Commission to make recommendations directly to the City
Council. Boyle stated language could be added enabling staff recommenda-
tions that the Charter Review Commission concurs with to go to the City
Council.
Calmer stated that the Charter Review Commission should consider if any of
the proposed charter amendments are going to make the charter a better
document for the citizens of Iowa City; if the Charter Review Commission
proposes any amendments - he wants to be able to support those amendments;
and if citizens feel strongly enough the charter can be changed by their
submitting petitions. Davidson said the Charter Review Commission was set
up to review the charter and then propose changes if, in fact, those
changes will make a better charter and the Charter Review Commission's
role is not to give the citizens of Iowa City a chance to vote on an
issue. Davidsen explained that the Council by resolution may submit a
proposed amendment to the voters; Council by ordinance may amend the
charter, or a petition signed by eligible electors can require an election
to amend the charter. Commission members agreed that any issue put to the
ballot should be simply worded. Matsumoto stated that it would not be in
violation of the charter, to put alternative propositions on the ballot and
that it would be difficult for voters to initiate an amendment because of
the problems of gathering all of the information. Matsumoto said that
voters should have a chance to vote on a matter which may be of public
interest.
Davidsen, Balmer and Welt stated that districting should not be a ballot
issue. Roberts, Goodwin, Mintzer, Baldus, and Matsumoto all felt that
districting should be put on the ballot. Baldus stated that the Charter
Review Commission ought to bend over backwards in the name of democracy to
allow people to have a vote if the camnission thinks it's a responsible
position and if there is a strong body of support in favor of that
position. Davidsen countered that the democratic process is available but
the Charter Review Commission's responsibility is to review the charter.
Regarding districting, Davidsen said she would hate to see Iowa City get
involved in partisan politics. Roberts spoke in favor of the three
districts electing their own represantative and keeping four at -large rep-
resentatives. Welt explained that the present system was established as
one method to detract from the powers of a strong political machine.
Baldus said if districting is adopted by the voters and it gets out of
control, there is a still a means to change it. Balmer said the majority
of the commission wants districting on the ballot and requested that
commission members from the majority should develop ballot language.
Commission members discussed how the issue should go on the ballot.
Mintzer suggested the ballot should ask 'Should each district elect their
own representative to City Council?' Matsumoto suggested putting the
present charter language vs. the proposed alternative on the ballot.
Mintzer said that ballot language should not give special weight to the
present system and the issue should be stated to make it clear what voters
are choosing. Davidsen said the ballot should read 'Shall Section 2.01 be
changed as follows... shall Section 3.03 be changed as follows...' and put
a charter in the voting booth. Welt stated that wording could have a
major impact. Baldus suggested ballot language: 'Do you favor a system in
which each of the City s three districts nominate and elect in the City
.?330
Charter Review Commission
November 29, 1904
P
age 3
election its own City Councilors, or the present system in which the three
districts of the City nominate candidates who are subsequently elected at
large in the City election,' in an 'A" or 'B" format. Roberts suggested
choices be rotated on the ballot. Matsumoto said that information is
given to the voters by identifying what the present system is. Baldus
said he will write suggested language and give it to Boyle for review.
Davidsen said the actual text of the proposed changes should be placed in
the booths so voters can read the amended text.
Commission members discussed Article VI, Campaign Disclosures. In
response to Mintzer, Davidsen said that enforcement, not full disclosure,
seems like the difficult issue. Balmer said the Charter Review Commission
should try to conclude the discussion on districting and disclosure at
Saturday's meeting.
Mintzer suggested that one of the four at -large Council seats be elected
for only a two year term. Boyle stated that State law requires four year
staggered terms.
Next meeting 8:30 a.m., Saturday, December 1.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.
„Z33O
MI NJ TFS
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 1, 1984
Charter Review Commission: December 1, 1984, 8:30 AM in the Council Chambers
at the Civic Center, Chairperson Balmer presiding. .
COMMISSION PRESENT: Mintzer, Goodwin, Balmer, Davidson, Matsumoto, Roberts,.
Ringgenberg, Welt, Baldus
STAFF PRESENT: Karr, Boyle, Smith
Tape recorded: Reel 113 -84, Side 1, 364 -End, Side 2, All; 114 -84, Side 1;
15 -84, Side 1, All, Side 2, 1 -115.
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM. The minutes of the
November 26, 1984 Charter Review Commission meeting were approved as read.
Boyle. exFlained a person is a qualified elector unless their registration is
cancelled even if that person moves within the City limits. Cancellation of
registration occurs under State Code when a person dies, registers to vote to
another place, if the clerk sends notification of an elector's conviction of an
infamous crime or felony, mental retardation, or when first class mail which is
designated not to be forwarded and -as addressed to the elector, was returned
to the postal service. The State Code does not specifically cover the situa-
tion if a person is a qualified elector if that person has noved and hasn't
changed thei registration. In response to Davidsen, Boyle said in his opinion
the charter definitions section would not need to be changed.
Boyle raised the concern about if a person signs a petition but does not fill
in birthdate or social security number. Boyle recommended adding language to
the last sentence in charter section 7.04.0: "A valid signature need not be in
the identical form in which the qualified elector's name appears on the voting
rolls; nor must the address be the same as shown on such rolls if either the
qualified elector's birthdate or social security number is as shown on the
voting rolls.' The Commission generally agrea.d with the recommendation.
Balmer stated he favors the present charter section 7.04.D and 7.03.8 provi-
sions. Balmer suggested that if changes are made, they should be simple and
straightforward so as not to confuse people. Karr stated that additional
information helps the orobiem of eliminating signatures solely on the basis of
address but will requirc- more staff time to validate the signatures and process
suppl::�aental petitions. Commission members said the additional information
should help the Clerk's interpretation of signature legibility and make the
Clerk's job easier. Matsumoto said the charter section 7.03.8 seems to
indicate that a signature is invalid if the birthdate and social security
numbers are omitted. Boyle suggested charter section 7.03.8, second sentence,
read 'The petition form shall provide space for signature, address, social
security number and birthdate." Boyle stated the validity of si nature
provision deems whether the signature is a valid signature. K rr ested
substituting charter section 7.03.8 "either" with "and one of the following."
Ringgenberg suggested allowing the City Council to work it put. Baldus said to
include in charter section 7.03.8 "The form shall include space for address,
date of execution, social security number, birthdate and any other information
the Council wants." In response to Karr, Boyle said the signature is not valid
if the name and address don't match and the birthdate and social security
number are omitted.
a33o
Minutes
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 1984
Page 2
Patt Cain, former Commission member, explained that the Charge of the Charter
Review Commission is to come up with recommendations to improve and fine tune
the city charter, Cain said t'!e Charter Review Commission should be committed
to proposed changes. The current process is set up for people who want change,
are Committed to that change, and are willing to work for that change. Cain
said any new proposals by the Charter Review Commission will be assumed to have
the Charter Review Commission's support. If the Charter Review Commission
proceeds with the districting proposals, Cain hoped that the Charter Review
Commission will give its reasoning to the community and be willing to go out
and justify making it an issue. in response to Roberts, Cain said the original
Charter Review Commission did not have control over the format of the ballot.
Matsumoto said Cain's position is reasonable but an alternative, to allow
voters to choose, is a valid position also. Balmer stated that the districting
proposal does not need the full endorsement of the Charter Review Commission
and he doesn't endorse that proposal.
Mary Neuhauser, former Mayor and Councilmember, said the Charter Review
Commission is charged to make recommendations and not to say 'We don't know
what to do.' If the Commission is not prepared to make recommendations, then
it should recommend a change to the charter to abolish the commission.
Neuhauser raised concerns about the districting proposal's impact on the
selection of the mayor. With the districting proposal, it would be conceivable
to have a mayor selected by the Council for whom two- thirds of the City did not
have a chance to vote. Therefore, the mayor would not be representing the city
as a whole but would be representing only one district. Matsumoto asked how
important 1s the mayor's function other than presiding over Council meetings.
Balmer explained that the Mayor represents the majority view of the Council,
speaks for the Council at meetings and with legislators, and represents the
City's views on state and federal levels. Matsumoto said a mayor under the
proposed system would also act in that manner. Neuhauser explained that there
are two reasons for having a ward system: if cities are too big or because a
segregation problem where a minority feels disenfranchised. Neuhauser said the
present system has worked well for Iowa City. in response to Mintzer, Charter
Review Commission members stated the idea of having a popularly elected mayor
has been discussed by the original Charter Review Commission.
Ringgenberg said that people get plenty of choices within the charter.
Ringgenberg said he could propose numerous issues to put on the ballot but
Charter Review Commission members should be convinced on those issues.
Matsumoto argued that there nay be conditions of uncertainty that make It
important for voters to have choices. Matsumoto said that the charter amend-
ment provisions allow voters to put an issue on the ballot, it doesn't take
into consideration the time and effort, the cost and information necessary to
do so.
Input was received from Ann Parton, Mel Novick, Naomi Novick, and Ann Bovjbero.
Mel Novick stated that the districting proposal is not an amendment in a
technical sense, the proposal will cause confusion, and that by making the
proposal the Charter Review Commission 1s not doing its job. He said that he
doesn't want the Commission to change the current form of government but if the
Charter Review Commission proposes changes, Commission members should be
available to the public for explanations. Novick emphasized that any amendment
should improve local government and make it more responsive to citizens. Balmer
a 330
Minutes
CherterReview Commission
December 1, 1984
Page 3
said correspondence has been received from the league of Women Voters. Moved
by Roberts, seconded by Ringgenberg, to accept the correspondence. Motion
passed.
Commission members agreed to forward preliminary recommendations to present
Counciimembers, for their individual comments, prior to final discussion and
formal recommendations.
Balmer said that he will accept the majority vote of the Charter Review
Commission but will explain to the public that the districting proposal is not
a recommendation from the Charter Review Commission. The proposal is an option
for the voters. Balmer said that he personally does not favor the proposal and
will work to maintain the present system. Balmer said the district proposal is
different and that if the majority of the Commission strongly favored an issue,
it would stand hehind it. Charter Review Commission discussed how the district
proposal would go on the ballot. Karr noted that the current Charter Review
Commission is not mandated to use the ballot form used by the original Charter
Review Commission and voting is now done on a new computerized card system.
Karr explained that the computerized system will need additional programming
for a related two question /yes or no format. Karr reported that programming
costs $75 per hour and could take weeks or months to complete.
Roberts stated that he favors the districting proposal. Mintzer said that the
current system causes voter confusion and disenfranchises students. Naomi
Novick said that voters need to be educated about the current system. Goodwin
and Roberts agreed that the new proposal will clarify the current election
system. N. Novick gave a simple explanation of t`e current voting system. In
response to Mintzer, Novick said the problem is not student disenfranchisement
but rather that students just don't care to vote. Mel Novick emphasized the
current district proposal is invalid as an amendment. Matsumoto said that the
current proposal is an amendment and gives the voters a yes or no choice.
Baldus said that proposal is trying to clarify districting for an ill- informed
electorate. Balmer stag that a yes or no format should be used on the
ballot. In response to Goodwin, Karr explained that the charter text referrred
to in the ballot question 1s postd in Oe voting booth. Baldus suggested
using the format used by the original Charter Review Commission: 'Shall the
present systee...be retained and shall the proposal to change be adopted.'
Voters must be instructed to vote on one of the two questions. Bovjbarg
suggested that if the Charter Review Commission is not bound by law to use par-
ticular language on the ballot, the Commission can work to clarify within the
yes or no format. Mintzer suggested putting the actual wording of the amendment
In the voting booth. Matsumoto said the City Council should have an opportu-
nity to review the districting proposal. Balmer said that a memo can be sent to
the City Council requesting their individual comments. Bavidsen said that the
Commission will need to look at district boundaries and will need to appoint a .
districting subcommittee.
In reference to initiative and referendum, Karr suggested making the additional
Information for signature validation mandatory. Baldus said that the Clerk has
the power to say on the petition form that the validation of the signature
shall depend upon the Clerk's ability to verify it and that depends upon
providing information.
4 330
Minutes
Carter Review Commission
December 1, 1994
Page 4
Charter Review Commission reviewed Mintzer's July 13 recommendations regarding
the full disclosure section.
Balmer recommended that final decisions be made on issues already discussed by
the Commission. Goodwin, Baldus, Matsumoto, Roberts, Mintzer voted in favor of system changin the n, Ringgenberg and Balmer were opposed to
resent irthe changesentatives. W' -lt.
Davidse
Welt, Goodwin, Baldus, Matsumoto and Roberts voted in favor of the original
ballot question 11 proposed language. Davidsen, Mintzer, Ringgenberg and
Balmer favored the modified f2 ballot question.
for theiproposal. Balmersaskked if the Commission swould hprefer a
to remain neutral
rather than endorse remain side neutral.
issue. The Commission voted 8/1
(Mintzer voting
Balmer said that it is incumbent upon each member to explain his /her own
opinion regarding districting. Commission members discussed the proposed
district ballot format. Davidsen noted that instructions will have to be
revised because levers are no longer used in voting. Commission members
A'
discussed using an ' or '8' format and 'yes' and 'no' format. Davidsen said
that wording of an amendment is important. Baldus suggested that districting
threes district Councilpmembers read: 11 favor be nominated andnelect dent to provide for the
Balmer appointed Davidsen, Baldus, and Matsumoto to a subcommittee to draft
appropriate language. The subcommittee will meet with Karr after this meeting
and prepare such language.
The and Cnforcem enforcement. BCommission
stated that he believestthatttthe preslentischarter
Article VI works fine and the City Council can require more disclosure. Baldus
inquired if there were any technical inconsistencies between the charter and
State law. Balmer stated that the charter is not inconsistent with State law.
Mintzer spoke in favor of full disclosure provision. Neuhauser stated that it
is appropriate to allow Council to decide on disclosure and inquired about how
in -kind services would be treated. Mintzer stated that an estimate could be
made on the cost of donated services or the services themselves could be
listed. Balmer stated that disclosure is required and there is a mechanism for
punishment for violation. Matsumoto noted that the charter requires the
Council to adopt an ordinance requiring disclosure of all contributions and in
absence of such an ordinance no requirements exist requiring disclosure of all
contributions. Mintzer inquired if thpra was a consensus by the Charter Review
Commission to retain Article VI as is presently written. Matsummoto suggested
amening fulld disclosure rwas cneve rthe intention of rthe originalr Charter sReview ldCommisa
coommissionhwaserconcernd mor d
e ab utexpendit rese r
inch C
artersectionR6.01.
Baldus suggested deleting charter Article VI because of State law regulations.
Mintzer stated that if the Council chooses to change the charter, they should
a33o
Minutes
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 1984
Page 5
not be allowed to change the charter by way of an ordinance and not change the
actual charter. Mintzer said the City Council could have adopted an ordinance
that states the City follows State law in terms of disclosure and contribution.
Balmer said the Charter Re' ;'yew Commission can discuss Article VI and the
districting ballot language at the December 10 meeting. Baldus said public
input should be received at that meeting after Charter Review Commission
members have taken a tentative position on issues. Mintzer would like the
Charter Review Commission to consider Article VIII and the two year moratorium
on having referendums on City ordinances at the next meeting. Baldus said the
following Article VIII language could be added to read: 'The Council shall
adopt the proposed amendments. according to the power in the preceding section
or submit them to the voters.'
Meeting adjourned at 11:45.
0?33O
Charter Review Commission
December 10, 1984
Charter Review Commission: December 10, 1984, 7:00 p.m in the Council
Chambers at the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: Balmer, Goodwin, Baldus, Welt, Roberts, Matsumoto,
Mintzer (7:25 p.m.), Davidsen (7:30 p.m.), Ringgenberg (7:40 p.m.).
Staff Present: Karr, Boyle, Smith.
Ta e Rcorded: Reel 15 -84, Side 2, 115-End; 16 -84, Sides 1 and 2, All;
17% 4, Side 1, 1 -372.
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The minutes of
the November 9 and December 1, 1984 Charter Review Commission meetings were
approved as read.
Commission members reviewed the December 7 memo regarding initiative and
referendums from the City Clerk, City Manager and Assistant City Attorney.
Balmer stated that the proposed change would be handled as a technical change.
through the City Clerk to the City Council.
Baldus noted that words in parenthesis were meant as deletions, so the words
"solely" should be deleted from the December 10, 1984 draft of amendment to
7.04.D and "and either" from the draft of amendment to 7.03.8.
In reference to initiative and referendum, Karr stated that if more informa-
tion is wanted to validate signatures, it should be required. Karr explained
that names and birth dates don't fluctuate or change, as addresses do. In
response to Matsumoto, Boyle said it is his opinion under Iowa law that once
a person is registered, a person is still a qualified elector even if that
person moves. Also, a qualified elector is a voter who is registered to vote
in Iowa City. Balmer said the goal should be to ensure that people who are
actually qualified are assured that their name is counted when they sign a
petition. Boyle suggested the Commission could draft a memorandum to the
Council explaining the Commission's position. Baldus said that the Commission
should get an agreement from the City Council about the initiative and
referendum recommendation. Baldus said the recommendation should go on the
ballot if Council doesn't consider the changes. Baldus suggested that name
and birthdate be required and the Council could require the address. In
reference to the December 10 draft of amendment to 7.033, Baldus suggested
deleting "the address of the person signing" and "the person's social
security number ". In response to Baldus, Karr said that she did not know
what proportion of voter registrations have the social security since it is
optional. Boyle stated that the address should be required if initiative and
referendum is meant to be limited to just qualified electors in Iowa City.
Commission members agreed to eliminate the social security requirement from
amendment to 7.03.8, and to delete social security number from the last
sentence in amendment to 7.04.0. and to have the address on petitions.
Balmer said he will attend the Council discussion of this issue.
The Charter Review Commission next reviewed the December 10, 1984 memo from
Boyle regarding charter Section 8.02. Boyle explained that he, the City
Attorney and City Manager concluded that there is a serious question about
A67
the validity of a multiple choice proposal and whether that is a "recommenda-
tion deemed fit" by the Commission. Boyle raised concerns about defending
the issue if it is passed in the proposaa `nrm.t. Baldus said there is
a ^:�;yuity in the Section 8.02 language as to whether it means deems fit to
put it on the ballot or it deems fit for the voters to adopt. Baldus said
the original Charter Review Commission never considered the question of in-
terpretation as to if "fit" means to put it on the ballot or if "fit" meant
to be the law of jurisdiction. In response to Baldus, Boyle said there is no
case law on this issue. In response to Matsumoto, Boyle said the Commission
is required by the language in Section 8.02 to take a position favoring any
amendment it proposes and it is inappropriate to remain neutral on an issue.
Davidsen explained the original charter provided for the Commission to
recommend if it saw fit because there are other ways the charter can be
amended. Welt said the role of the Charter Review Commission should have
been more definitely outlined. Mintzer inquired about the proposed wording
on page two of Boyle's December 10 memo.
Baldus asked if the City would suffer a default judgement or would the City
defend the legality of the provision if someone files an action against the
City to strike the proposed change from the ballot. Boyle said he would
recommend to the Council that they hire special counsel to defend it.
Davidson inquired about what happens if someone does something contrary to
the charter. In response' to Balmer, Matsumoto explained that three Charter
Review Commission members feel the ballot proposal is deemed fit by Boyle's
rationale and two Charter Review Commission members feel it is appropriate
for voters of Iowa City to determine the issue. Baldus stated that the two
issues are 1) can the Charter Review Commission put something on the ballot
without the majority supporting it and 2) the format that should be used on
the ballot. Baldus moved to put districting on the ballot even though the
Commission does not have a majority vote to recommend it to the voters.
Motion seconded by Roberts. Motion cerried five yes (Roberts, Mintzer,
Matsumoto, Baldus, Goodwin), three opposed (Balmer, Davidsen, Welt) and one
abstension (Ringgenberg).
Public input was received frem Robert Welsh. Welsh stated that Charter
Review Commission's function is to make recommendations.
The Charter Review Commission discussed the proposed ballot question wording.
Boyle said the proposed language as stated on page two of Boyle's December 10
memo would be easier to defend as an amendment than an a or b choice, in
reference to the Commission's December 10 ballot question proposal draft,
Baldus su Bested than ing the wording in option A to read seats on the
City Council be nominated by the voters of their Districts but be elected in
the City..." Baldus said the proposed ballot question is a presentation of an
amendment to vote on and gives voters information to make an informed choice.
Baldus also suggested changing option 8 to read three district City
Council members be nominated...' Mintzer recommended changing "strictly" to
orderlt in option
the should be placed B
lacedon thCommission l u
ballot agreedtoalternatewthe
order of the options and to have the option labels of "A" or "B" remain as
part to option question. seconded Mintzer
Roberts. the Mintzer lmov option
decide on ballot option labels by lottery or flip of the coin. Balmer ruled
the motion out of order.
1s/
a tZ,
Commission members reviewed Mintzer's proposal for enforcement that would
replace Section 6.04. Mintzer inquired about how the Charter Review Commis-
sion decides if the proposed change is a technical or ballot amendment and if
Mintzer's dissent on a vote would make the proposal a ballot amendment.
Mintzer stated that an amendment becomes a ballot amendment if the Charter
Review Commission takes a vote on the issue. Mintzer read his enforcement
Proposal to the Charter Review Commission. Mintzer said Section C of his
proposal was taken directly from the charter Section 6.04. In response to
Baldus, Mintzer said forfeiture means a person would have to give up the
money. Roberts asked who the money would he given to. Boyle noted Section 0
of Mintzer's proposal should read "nothing in Section A shall be
construed..." Balmer said the Commission needs to address Section 6.02 since
it had been indicated that all contributions had to be disclosed. In
response to Matsumoto, Balmer said there is a disclosure requirement under
the State Code. Baldus recomnended changing Section 2 of the Mintzer
proposal to read "in violation of Section 6.02 or state law." Baldus asked
if the City Clerk would administer the proposed provision, and suggested that
if a Councilmember does not pay the money, that person would not be author-
ized to sit until the money is paid to the Clerk and the Clerk certifies the
money has been paid. Ringgenberg said penalties should not be written into
the Charter. Balmer said there are no major disclosure problems in the
community and the present charter provisions have worked well. Goodwin
stated the repealed violation sanction of the Iowa City Code should have been
retained. Boyle said the City code provides that any violation of the City
Code is a misdemeanor subject to a $100 fine or 30 days in jail and that
state law stipulates that contributions should not include services in -kind
on a candidate's behalf unless by organized groups such as unions. Karr read
an applicable section of City Attorney Jansen's May 3, 1963 memo: ..I
would, however, call your attention to the fact that one of the provisions
being repealed does place a limit of f50 in total contributions from the in-
dividuals contributing. A similar provision does not exist in the State Code
and the Council may wish to retain that limitation..." Balmer said the
Council did not consider penalties when the changes were nade to the City
Code. Mintzer explained Section VI should not be retained as is because it
allows the Council too much leeway in prescribing penalties for violations.
Balmer stated that there are sufficient penalties under state law that can be
exacted against someone who wilfully violates campaign contributions and
disclosure requirements. Baldus proposed that "1) each violation of the
state law or city ordinance limitation on campaign contributions as deter-
mined by the City Clerk shall result in a civil obligation to the City of
those funds received in excess of the limitation or the maximum allowed by'
state law, whichever is less, and a Council candidate found by the City Clerk
to be in violation of this section shall not be seated in the Council until
the City Clerk certifies that the candidate's obligation to the City has been
paid, and 2) each day that a disclosure statement is late under state law or
city charter ordinance shall be considered as a violation of the charter.
Each violation that is determined by the City Clerk shall result in a civil
obligation to the City..." With those recommendations, Baldus said it becomes
self- executing within the confines of the city. Karr stated that the City
Clerk, City Attorney and City Manager are appointed by the City Council and
therefore it would be awkward to direct the City Clerk to administer the
enforcement provisions. Baldus inquired if there had been violations in past
Years. Balmer responded he was not aware of any such violations.
/S7
Moved by Baldus, seconded by Ringgenberg, to delete "all" from line 4 in
Section 6.02. Motion carried, 7 -2 (Mintzer and Gnodwin opposed).
Moved by Matsumoto, seconded.by Baldus, to change "shall" to "may" in line
one of Section 6.02. Matsumoto said Section 6.02 is an empty provision if
shall is retained and all is deleted. Motion carried 5 -4 (in favor: Balmer,
Matsumoto, Davidsen, Roberts, Welt; opposed: Baldus, Goodwin, Mintzer,
Ringgenberg). Commission members discussed the need for additional sanctions
section. Davidsen asked what happens if there are violations under the State
Code. Boyle said there are administrative penalties under State Code.
Mintzer stated that in accordance with Article VIII, campaign contribu-
tions /disclosure should be considered a ballot issue and not a technical
change because the Charter Review Commission took several votes on that
issue. Boyle stated that the Charter Review Commission has to vote on the
issue to determine if changes go onto the ballot. Matsumoto said that
deleting "all" and changing "shall" to "may" are big issues. Ringgenberg
stated the Charter Review Commission decides if an issue goes on the ballot.
Matsumoto suggested retaining the present Section 6.02 and outlining the
problem to Council for their response (to either pass an ordinance or amend
the Charter) . Moved by Matsumoto, seconded by Baldus, to convey the Charter
Review Commission discussion about Section 6.02 to the Council. Doyle said
the legal department will have to advise the Council that Section 6.02
mandates that they enact legislation and that the majority of the Charter
Review Commission wants to change "shall" to "nay" and eliminate "all ". The
Council has the option to change the charter. Balmer stated an ordinance
should be prepared that includes the technical. changes. Boyle said he would
write a draft in standard ordinance form deleting Section 6.02 and amending
it in its entirety to read "the Council by ordinance may... ", delete "all ",
and then put back in all remaining words. Balmer said all the information
should be provided in a cover memo. Davidsen said the Council should be
encouraged to use " may ", delete "all ", and enact an ordinance. Motion
carried 7 -2 (opposed: Mintzer and Goodwin).
Mintzer, Davidsen and Goodwin said another meeting is needed. Baldus said
that any proposals should be written out to enable Commission members to
vote on them. Davidsen said districting needs to be discussed and that a
non - partisan group is needed to draw up the district lines. Moved by Welt,
seconded by Baldus, to not schedule another meeting until after the Council
discussion with the Charter Review Commission scheduled for January 22.
Motion carried.
Mintzer recommended deleting Section 7.03.E, changing Article VIII to allow
the Charter Review Commission to make recommendations to the Council, and
establish a two year Council term. Commission members did not feel Section
7.03.E should be deleted. Baldus suggested Article VIII language read: "The
Commission may also submit recommendations to the Council that it exercise
its power of amendment pursuant to 8.01.8 in the manner recommended by the
Commission." The Charter Review Commission gave approval to the suggestion
as a technical change. Commission members did not wish to explore the two
year Council term.
/3-/
Balmer stated a Charter Review Commission meeting will be scheduled after the
City Council discussion of the charter changes. Karr stated that the City
Council discussion is scheduled for January 22. Baldus said a draft of the
final changes shall be sent to all Charter Review Commission members for
their review. Balmer said the information should be sent to the Council
Promptly after the Coircnission review.
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 o.m.
151
r I` \-\
"ir�
FINAL MEETING*
CHARTER REVIEW C0: " :1SS10N
JANUARY 21, 1985
Charter Review Commissioh: January 21, 1985, 7:05 PM in the Council
Chambers at the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding.
Commission Present: Balmer, Mintzer, Ringgenberg, 8aldus, Davidsen,
Matsumoto. bsent: Roberts, Welt, Goodwin.
Staff Present: Karr, Boyle, Smith.
Ta a Recorded: Reel CRC17 -84, Side 1, 372 -End, Side 2, All; CRC18.84,
Side , 1- .
Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM, The minutes of
the December 10, 1984 Charter Review Commission were approved as read.
Balmer said this meeting was necessitated by information received from the
City Clerk and County Auditor. Also changes In information need
.clarified before the meeting with the City Council. to be
Review Ballot Laneuaae
Comission Attorne
e.Karr Stated that aeformal legal lopinion from i the istate yElections
Director
anguage couldotake 30 County days. Baidus read Sectionh49 proposed 5 hebState
Code Ballots referred to in Section 49.43 shall be in the following form:
'Shall the following amendment to the Constitution (or public measure) 6e
adopted... here insert summary....' Boyle noted the Code says Insert the
Boyle y if it di a t now if oral amendment or statewide public measure.•
Boyle said a didn't know if a summary could be used if it is non- state-
wide. Commissioners agreed State Code is ambiguous because it is not
measure. a can be used if it
discussedschangingtethieelanguageyforlo the cal
ballot proposal. Boyle suggested adding ballot language to read 'The
proposed amendment will provide for nomination and election... •, thereby
surtmarizing the intent. Commission members agreed to the following ballot
language:
'The Iowa City Charter now provides for nomination of three Council -
members by district with election by voters of the entire City, The
proposed
ounetlmemberss be nominated andvelectetdasole, by three
t a votersdistrict
of their
respective districts.
Shall the following proposed amendment to the Charter of Iowa City be
P e
No E=J
'Section 2.01 Composition...
Section 3.03 Regular City Election...'
Balmer requested staff to prepare a copy of the language as agreed upon
for the Council meeting,
* Mailed to commission for approval
57
Page 2
Revisions to Proposed Changes
The Charter Review Commission reviewed the January 18, 1985 memo from
Assistant City Attorney Boyle.
Section 1.02. Boyle stated that the City Manager has concerns that when
the c arter was originally drafted "subject to state law" was limited to
each section so that there would not be any implication that the Charter
Review Commission was trying to limit the powers of the City in any way.
Ringgenberg said the original Charter Review Commission was trying to stay
with local control. Commission members agreed to stay with the original
charter language.
Definitions. Boyle said if the charter is revised to state 'resident of
O
we y w g is registered to vote', then it clearly limits it to people
who are both residents of and registered to vote in Iowa City.
Section 7.038 and 7.040. Baldus said new language that will be submitted
or oune approva needs to be underlined. Commission members reviewed
changes to 7.038 and 7.040 and discussed mandatory and optional require-
ments for validation of signatures.
Baldus said the intention is to provide information to verify if a
signature is valid. Boyle said two things are needed: A person who is a
resident of Iowa City and is a qualified elector - the address provides
evidence of the Iowa City residence. Baldus said a clause should be added
stating that failure to provide this information shall not invalidate the
petition. Commission members said 7.04D covers that. Baldus said there
are two issues: 1) 00 we want to require that the document include a
place to enter information (name, address, date, birthdate), and 2) Is the
failure to put that information on the petition a basis for invalidation.
huaedae a hth thirviaitatthervisesction7 .038satesthat the form required. to provide space
for the birthdate and the City Council can still require that birthdate be
filled in. Karr said that if the Council would require birthdate, they
would do so with an ordinance change and omit 'that no signer shall be
required to furnish his /her birthdate' from Section 7.038. Baidus said
people should have the opportunity to provide that information and it
should not be left to the discretion of Council. Karr said that people
will not provide.the information if it is optional. Karr and Davidsen
raised concerns that there is confusion with what's required on the form,
whet the petitioners have to do, and what the Council can do. Commission
members discussed what information should be required on the form and from
the petitioners. Balmer said if information is optional, petitioners
should be told that the birthdate may be needed to determine the validity
of signatures. Baldus said the Charter Review Commission needs to decide
if the optional information is needed to validate a signature. Boyle
stated that the City Clerk shouldn't be required to go to other collateral
sources to validate signatures. In response to Baldus, Boyle said the
signature would not be counted if the date is omitted because of the
Charter provision that requires that the signature be secured and peti-
tions filed within six months after the date the affidavit is required.
[Note: Even though the signature might otherwise be valid for purpose of
s7z
Page 3
Section 7.040.] Baldus proposed that Section 7.038 read " ..the form
shall also provide space for the signers birthdate but failure to enter
birthdate shall not invalidate a signers signature.'
Karr inquired about the validation of a signature if the date is omitted.
Boyle said the omission of the date doesn't invalidate the signature, it
just means that it wasn't signed at the right time. Karr said she
requested consideration of the problem of timing, the validity of signa-
ture's section, and had general concerns about what should be counted when
validating signatures. Karr explained that birthdate was mentioned in a
previous memo as a possible substitution for address. Since the address is
necessary, Karr does not endorse using birthdate as an additional optional
criteria to verify signatures. Karr stated the slmpliest way to avoid
problems is to get the minimal amount of information required to verify a
signature. Karr stated she is willing to work on the language that would
use birthdate as a criteria. Baldus said it is completely irresponsible
to invalidate a signature solely because someone has moved and that if the
City Council does not accept this section as revised it should go on the
ballot.
Commission member agreed to revise language in Section 7.036 to read
the form shalt also provide space for the signer's birthdate but
failure to enter birthdate shall not invalidate a signer's signature' and
retain Section 7.040 as noted in the January 18, 1985 revisions.
Section 8.02. Boyle explained ON a manner' might not allow City Council
eMiTity or any freedom. In response to Ringgenberg, Boyle said
language allowing the Charter Review Commission to recommend to the
Council 'corrective and minor amendments' is too vague and leaves it open
to interpretation problems regarding what corrective and minor amendments
are.
Balmer will 'report the results of the meeting with City Council at the
next Charter Review Commission meeting. Karr will check on the earliest
date for submitting the ballot question through the County Auditor. The
ballot question will be sent to the Charter Review Commission members for
their review before submitting it to the City Council and to the Commis-
sioner of Elections.
Meeting adjourned at 8;10 PM.
-57.2
Late Handouts— Handed out at 4/8/14 meeting
le 49
Lj
i _ 1
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MAY 17, 1994 - 5:30 PM
CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
Charter Review Commission: Cain, Egli, Geaslam;, McCullough, McDonald, Penningroth,
Ringgenberg. Absent: Rhodes, Willis. Guest: Mayor Horowitz. City staff: Karr, Smith
(6:50). Tape recorded on Tapes CRC94 -1, Side 1.
BGANIZ TIONAL COMMENTS:
City Clerk Karr opened the meeting by thanking members for their interest in serving, and
stated meetings are open and will be taped. Karr added that she will post agendas and
Commission members can contact her for additional information.
Charter Review Commission members introduced themselves and presented background
information.
Mayor Horowitz welcomed Charter Review Commission members and stated the review
process is really a grass roots way of looking at how we govern -)urselves.
ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR:
Karr noted that Craig Willis and Ann Rhodes were absent.
Moved by Cain, seconded by Geasland, to nominate John McDonald as Chair of the 1994
Charter Review Commission. All Charter Review Commission members voted in favor.
Moved by McCullough, seconded by Geasland, to nominate Patt Cain as Vice Chair of the
1994 Charter Review Commission. All Charter Review Commission members voted in favor.
McDonald took over the meeting as Chair of the Charter Review Commission.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
McDonald recommended scheduling one to two meetings per month and holding a public
hearing in September. Ringgenberg encouraged Charter Review Commission members to
become knowledgeable about the charter and suggested bringing in resource pc.sons to
provide background Information about the charter. Karr noted that City staff members would
be available to provide input about the charter. Penningroth suggested that Input be received
from boards and commissions. Ringgenberg emphasized that meetings should be scheduled
with a purpose.
City Clerk Karr Introduced Jill Smith, minute taker for the City Clerk's office.
Charter Review Commission members discussed the Commission meeting schedule. Members
tentatively scheduled future Commission meetings on the second and fourth Wednesdays of
the month at 5:30 p.m. The Charter Review Commission members tentatively scheduled the
1
3133e. s,s -.µ�. '[�t *S�E�,;r >`,�' «?F;Y<9f },� .,, �:�:^Tl+'FrC�#':vr,s� rF- ,rtis,��.. •'; `..':':. e.,s ±.t, aC[M�.zktia%u•;wxJs Ai?y.�,._5.:
Charter Review Commission
May 17, 1994
Page 2
next two meetings for June 8 and June 22, 5:30 p.m. City Clerk Karr asked Charter Review
Commission members to contact her office regarding their summer schedules.
McDonald talked about the importance of members familiarizing themselves with the content
of the charter. Ringgenberg suggested that members review the charter and make note of
any concerns, questions, and Issues. Ringgenberg offered to give background information on
the charter at the next meeting.
Coln asked Kerr to send: Charter. Review Commission members Information, Including the
recommendations and summary report written by the 1984 Charter Review Commission. Cain
also requested the outline developed by the original Commission explaining the differences
between the charter and the Council management form of government.
McCullough stated that the charter on file at the Iowa City Public Library is Incomplete and
needs to be replaced with a complete copy. Staff will follow -up.
In response to Ringgenberg; Karr stated that Roberts Rules of Order will be used. In response "
to Panningroth, Karr stated that agendas and meeting reminders will be sent out to Charter
Review Commission members. 'Karr noted that if information Is requested by an individual
Charter Review Commission member, that information will be sent to all Charter Review
Commission members.
Moved by Egli, seconded by McCullough, to adjourn the meeting, Meeting adjourned at 8:15
p.m.
.s,
i'F
�
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 8, 1994 — 5:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
Charter Review Commission: McDonald
Rhodes, Ringgenberg, Willis. City staff
CRC94 -1, Side 2; CRC94 -2, Side 1.
CALL TO ORDER:
Cain, Egli, Gvasland, McCullough, Penningroth,
present: Karr, Smith. Tape recorded on Tapes
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. All Charter Review
Commission (CRC) members were present. Moved by McCullough, seconded by Cain, to
approve the May 17, 1994, CRC meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously, 9 -0.
CHARTER OVERVIEW:
Ringgenberg distributed the handouts: Background on Home Rule City Powers and City
Charters; 372.9 Organization of City Government: and The Grant of Power to Your City.
Ringgenberg and Cain presented an overview about Iowa City's charter.
Ringgenberg stated constitutional amendment was adopted in the late '60s by the legislature,
then by the people, to give cities home rule. Ringgenberg stated state and city relationships
had been based on the Dillon rule which said that cities could only do what the state
legislature permitted. Examples were: at one time cities could not have charters and there
was never any provision under state law for initiative and referendum. Ringgenberg stated
that the Constitution of the State of Iowa was amended in 1968 to include the following
statement: "Municipal corporations are granted home rule power and authority, not
inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, to determine their local affairs in
government, except that they shall not have the power to levy any taxes unless expressly
authorized by the general assembly. The rule or proposition of law that a municipal
corporation possesses and can exercise only those powers granted in express words is not
part of the law of this state." This was written to overcome the Dillon rule. Ringgenberg
explained that the state legislature simplified and codified laws pertaining to the cities and also
put in words in new statutes to make it clear that cities should be given as much power as
possible under the new home rule idea and that courts should Interpret the laws in a more
liberal fashion as to what the cities can and cannot do.
Ringgenberg stated that the broad grant of powers to cities was granted in the following
provision (home rule act provision, enacted 1972); "A city may, except as expressly limited
by the constitution, and if not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, exercise
any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights,
privileges, and property of the city or of its residents, and to preserve and to improve the
peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience of its residents." McCullough stated
that it was a broad grant of power to the cities to do whatever they wanted to do as long as
they weren't inconsistent with the state law or state constitution. Ringgenberg said the home
rule gave cities a lot more flexibility than they used to have. Ringgenberg stated that Atty.
Bill Sueppel once said that cities can do what they want to except for three things: taxation;
it has to be a local matter within the city limits; and it has to be consistent with the laws of
the state. Ringgenberg reviewed sections of the state law that specifically clarified the scope
of the city's authority, including Section 362.8 provides that the City Code be construed
liberally, Section 384.2(2) provides that specific statutory grants of power should not be used
s
Charter Review Commission
June 8, 1994
Page 2
to limit or restrict the constitutional grant of home rule power and that any limitation on the
city's powers be expressly stated in state law; Section 364.2(3) says that a statute is not
inconsistent with a city action unless the two are irreconcilable; and Section 364.3(3)
provides that cities may set higher or more stringbi:: standards than those imposed by state
law, unless the state law provides otherwise.
Ringgenberg summarized provisions in the home rule charter procedure (Section 372.9): the
Council, itself, could propose a charter of the city; the people could petition the Council for
a charter commission; if a charter is voted upon and people say no to establishing a charter,
you cannot vote on that charter again for four years; and if you accept a charter, it has to be
in effect for six years. Ringgenberg stated that Section 372.10 content of the charter
included: a home rule charter must contain provisions for 1) a Council of an odd number of
members, not less than five; 2) a Mayor, who may be one of those Council members; 3) two -
year or staggered four -year terms of office for the Mayor and Council members; 4) the powers
and duties of the Mayor and the Council, consistent with provisions of the City Code; and 5)
a council representation plan. Ringgenberg explained that 372.11 states how to amend the
charter and includes that the Council may submit a proposed amendment to voters, the
Council, by ordinance, may amend the charter or you can have a change in the charter by
petition of the voters.
Ringgenberg stated that a charter is a constitution for the city.
Penningroth asked how it was decided what to include in the charter. Cain said everything
had to be related to the form of government and the powers and duties of the Council. Cain
explained that the original Charter Commission read extensively forms of government and
philosophies. Ringgenberg said that one of the reasons for the original Charter Commission
was the concern of representation under the existing state law and quite a lot of time was
spent on what the role of the Mayor should be.
REVIEW EXISTING CHARTER:
Willis suggested that the CRC establish an agenda, things the CRC should discuss, and then
discuss those issues. Cain asked if any CRC members have questions about the charter.
Geasland asked if there are things In the charter that need to be corrected because of state
!777! �1atY.t.A- V.1,na,n'�?1�� „b,'nSaNw�F1a1�ElV' u.b \ 7eV ZY ....'
Cain explained that the philosophy of the original Charter Commission was that the charter
should be considered like a constitution and therefore they included a preamble in the charter.
The original Charter Commission felt that everything that was said in the charter should be
related to the purposes included in the preamble. Secondly, the decision was made by the
original Charter Commission to be as brief and understandable as possible. Cain explained
that there are many references to a particular power or provision and the charter said "as
stated in or as provided for in state law." The intent was that the state law would change
and that the charter should be an outline or structure that would not have to be amended
constantly because it was too specific. Cain said that decisions by the original Charter
�*
Commission were almost never unanimous and everything was voted on for the original
charter.
i
Cain cautioned CRC members that after working on the charter, they will become very
sensitive to what the state does yearly to erode home rule. Recent examples of this is the
I'
ban on handguns can only be done at the state level and the pesticide legislation.
Penningroth asked how it was decided what to include in the charter. Cain said everything
had to be related to the form of government and the powers and duties of the Council. Cain
explained that the original Charter Commission read extensively forms of government and
philosophies. Ringgenberg said that one of the reasons for the original Charter Commission
was the concern of representation under the existing state law and quite a lot of time was
spent on what the role of the Mayor should be.
REVIEW EXISTING CHARTER:
Willis suggested that the CRC establish an agenda, things the CRC should discuss, and then
discuss those issues. Cain asked if any CRC members have questions about the charter.
Geasland asked if there are things In the charter that need to be corrected because of state
!777! �1atY.t.A- V.1,na,n'�?1�� „b,'nSaNw�F1a1�ElV' u.b \ 7eV ZY ....'
Charter Review Commission
June 8, 1994
Page 3
actions. Karr replied that input from City staff has not been received; correspondence was
received and distributed in CRC packets regarding term limitations; and that there are always
questions about initiative and referendum. McDonald said initiative and referendum will
probably be addressed at the next session of the legsiature. Karr said Kent Sovern, League
of Iowa Municipalities, informed City staff that the legislature was in the process of
considering the question of initiative and referendum, ran out of time in last year's legislative
session, and will take it up again this year. Willis requested information about the history of
the use of Initiative and referendum in Iowa City under charter. Karr stated that she can
provide the information about initiative and referendum and its current status in the state
legislature. Rhodes asked what is the rationale and concern that the legislature has regarding
initiative and referendum. Karr explained the challenge came from the City of Clinton that the
state law was silent on directing the Commissioner of Elections to place on the ballot
questions that came through the initiative and referendum process and because of the silence
on the direction to the Commissioner of Elections, the Commissioner raised a concern. It then
surfaced at the State Commissioner of Elections which then went to lobbyists to challenge
the entire issue. in response to Cain, Ringgenberg said that Iowa City, Clinton and Oskaloosa
have initiative and referendum. Cain explained that the original Charter Commission viewed
the initiative and referendum as a safety valve, a method of last resort and the initiative and
referendum process was made difficult so that it would not be abused. McDonald
recommended that the CRC review initiative and referendum even though it will continue to
be addressed on the state level.
Ringgenberg said the CRC members should ask if the charter is working and if certain
provisions are not working, what can be changed.
In response to McDonald, Karr answered that the definitions of qualified voter versus eligible
voters are established by state law but the charter can address the use of eligible and qualified
voter with initiative and referendum petitions. Karr stated that you have to be a registered
voter to sign the initiative and referendum petitions and the voter registration is used to verify
signatures. Ringgenberg stated that it is crucial for CRC members to understand the charter.
Geasland asked how the growing population in Iowa City is distributed in the Council districts.
Karr explained that by few, population growth Is looked at after each canst!a and adjust-
ed /redistributed to keep it balanced within the Council districts, Karr noted those boundaries
are also detailed in Chapter 10 of the Iowa City Code. Geasland stated Council districts is an
issue that should be discussed by CRC. Karr stated she will provide precinct maps outlining
Council districts to CRC members. Cain said CRC can look at the number of Council persons
and their distribution between at large and districts.
Geasland recommended that language in Section 2.06. Mayor. B. should be changed from
"spokesman" to "spokesperson."
McCullough asked why campaign finance disclosure laws were Included in the charter. Cain
said it was a very important issue, original Charter Commission members felt Iowa City should
be more stringent than state law, and there was a strong feeling that there should not be
undue influence during elections by anyone. McCullough said that it doesn't work well
because of the discrepancies and inconsistencies between the local and state requirements.
The Charter Commission agreed that it should be discussed as a future agenda Item. Karr said
she will provide CRC with a copy of the ordinance. Rhodes suggested that the CRC receive
copies of the state campaign finance disclosure revisions as well,
Charter Review Commission
June 8, 1994
Page 4
Penningroth referred to Section 2.11. B. and asked if Council can submit a bond issue.
McDonald said certain types of bond issues have to go to the voters and others Council can
make decisions on. In response to Penningroth, Karr stated there are different requirements
for different bonds. Willis suggested adding the roi; awing issues to the agenda for future
discussion: duration of term of office; electing versus nominating from representative
districts; Council compensation; Mayor selection; Section 2.10 filling vacancies; and
mechanism of elections. Karr stated she will review information on file as it relates to filling
a
vacancies and provide information.
ii Penningroth stated that the charter should include a provision that addresses non-discrimina-
tion as it relates to appointments and employees. Rhodes suggested it should be a principle
i in the preamble.
i
} In response to Cain, CRC members said the issue of recall should be discussed.
i
McCullough asked CRC to discuss how the city primary operates. Karr stated she will
research state requirements.
Geasland raised concerns about the terms "manage" and "supervise," in Section 4.04. Duties
of city manager A.(5) and 4.04. A. (6). Geasland asked If these provisions would prevent the
City from having a position of a facilities manager. Karr stated the City Manager could be
asked to provide information and there is a City policy that the City Manager is authorized to
expend funds to a certain amount. Kerr stated it is her understanding that Section 4.04.A.(6)
would not preclude a position of facility planner. Ringgenberg stated there is a similar
provision In state law that CRC could compare the charter with. Karr will provide copies of
the state law.
CRC discussed setting agenda and scheduling for public and staff input. Willis stated that
public input should be received on the front end. Cain suggested public input be scheduled
in September and to allow for staff input sometime during the summer. In response to Cain,
Karr stated she could prepare a staff memo requesting input on the charter. Karr said that
t City staff is available for meetings upon CRC request. Cain cautioned CRC members to be
careful about the perception of City staff influence on Issues.
McCullough asked CRC members if they wanted to consider a new and different alternative
form of government. McDonald stated that he was not interested In changing the current
form of government. Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to continue the charter review
discussions based on retaining the Council /Manager form of government. Motion passed
unanimously, 9.0.
Karr stated the next CRC meeting is scheduled for June 22, 1994, 5:30 p.m. McDonald said
future meetings are tentatively scheduled for the second and fourth Wednesdays of each
month and July meetings would be the 13th and 27th.
Meeting adjourned 7:10 p.m.
wrkwcbe.n
S4
..a
i
i
t
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 22, 1994 - 5:30 P.M.
COUNCIL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
John McDonald presiding. Charter Review Comrr ibd::;n: McDonald, Cain, Egli, Penningroth,
Ringgenberg, Willis. Absent: Geasland, McCullough, Rhodes. City staff present: Karr, Smith.
Tape recorded on Tapes CRC 94 -2, Side 2; CRC 94 -3, Side 1.
COMMISSION ACTION
Moved by Penningroth, seconded by Ringgenberg to approve the June 8, 1994, CRC meeting
minutes. Motion carried, 6.0.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Cain, that further discussion not Include proposed non- discriminato-
ry provisions to the Preamble. Motion carried, 6 -0.
Moved by Penningroth, seconded by Willis, to add non - discriminatory language3 to Sections 2.08E,
4.04A(3), and 5.02 and discuss those changes at the next CRC meeting. Motion carried, 6.0.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Ringgenberg, to defer further consideration: of initiative and
referendum for three months. Motion carried, 6 -0.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Penningroth, to remove 'recall' as a discussion Item. Motion
carried, 6.0.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Cain, that the Commission adopt as an operating principle that any
recommendation of action by the Commission be with the endorsement that the action is sound
public policy. Motion carried, 6 -0.
CALL TO ORDERIAPPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Moved by Penningroth, seconded
by Ringgenberg, to approve the June 8, 1994, CRC meeting minutes. Motion carried, 6 -0.
DISCUSSION
McDonald stated that some of the discussion items should be tabled until the next meeting
because there are three CRC members absent.
Agenda items were discussed as follows:
NON - DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS IN THE PREAMBLE.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Cain, that further discussion not include proposed non-
discriminatory provisions to the Preamble. Willis explained that the original Preamble was
carefully drafted, is well written and of historical value. Penningroth stated that stronger
language is needed in several specific places in the charter such as non - discrimination
in employment and appointment to Boards and Commissions. Cain explained that the
Preamble was written as a positive statement. In response to Penningroth, City Clerk Karr
stated that Boards and Commissions are addressed in the City Code. Penningroth said
that non - discriminatory provisions should be in the charter.
2
Ringgenberg asked when CRC should take action on recommendations or proposals.
McDonald stated that the CRC decided to get Input from staff and the public before they
take any specific action on recommendations. Willis suggested the Commission take
action to decide which Items will be on their agenda and how to deal with it procedurally.
Cain said action could be used for agenda setting. Willis said the only way to get a clearer
notion where Commission members stand 1:3 ;d morose motions and deal with it.
McDonald asked if there was any further discussion of the motion that further discussion
not include the non - discriminatory provisions to the Preamble. CRC voted on the motion,
motion carried, 6 -0.
Moved by Penningroth, seconded by Willis, to add non - discriminatory language to sections
2.08E, 4.04A(3) and 5.02 and discuss those changes at the next CRC meeting. Motion
carried 6 -0. In response to Willis, Penningroth stated she will prepare the non-
discriminatory language for those sections to present to Commission members at the next
meeting. In response to Cain, Karr will provide Information about non - discriminatory
language presently in the City Code.
2. CITY MANAGER DUTIES.
3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE
McDonald reocmendd that items 2 and 3 be deferred to the next meeting.
4. ELECTIONS
5. MAYOR SELECTION PROCESS
6. COUNCIL DISTRICTS
Willis said that elections and council districts should be r5sarssed together. Willis
suggested that these items be scheduled for dscussion at the next CRC meeting and that
each CRC member be prepared to give a 10 minute presentation on the topics.
Ringgenberg suggested that CRC members solicit input from former Council members and
unsuccessful candidates regarding elections, mayor selection process, and Council
districts (agenda hems 4, 5 and 6). Cain stated that a small focus group of former Council
members and unsuccessful candidates should be Invited to give their Input. Cain stated
that the focus group should not Include current Council members. McDonald suggested
soliciting Input from individuals since the 1984 Charter.
Commission members agreed to defer agenda hems 4, S. and 6 to their next meeting.
COUNCIL COMPENSATION
CRC briefly discussed Council compensation. Willis stated that when all CRC members
are in attendance he will submit a motion. Cain stated that Council compensation Is a
separate issue from elections, mayor selection process and Coundf districts. McDonald
explained that Council pay was the same from 1974 to 1984, then Increased in 1984.
McDonald stated that he never wanted Council compensation to be a wage that a person
could actually live on. In response to Ringgenberg, Cain explained that the Charter, In
Section 2.05, states that Council shall be compensated and the Council shall set it. In
4
'� 1
Q
a
10.
a
response to McDonald, Karr said she understands Council was compensated prior to 1974
on a per meeting basis.
Karr asked CRC members to consider a policy regarding conducting business when not
all CRC members are present. Commission members decided to reschedule meetings if
more than two members are absent.
Penningroth asked if comments were received from City staff.' Karr explained that she has
received three responses from City staff but expects receive more comments by next
meeting.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Karr explained that Johnson County Elections Commissioner /Auditor Tom Slockett shared
the same concerns as the City of Clinton but had not raised those concerns because all
of the initiative and referendums have failed. Karr stated that Slockett will follow up with
a letter. Moved by Willis, seconded by Ringgenberg, to defer further consideration of
initiative and referendum for three months. Motion carried, 6 -0.
RECALL
Cain explained that one of the rationales for not having recall in the charter was that there
was that there is a way to get rid of Council persons by the election process and that
Council terms are only four years. In response to Penningroth, Cain stated that frequently
recall was placed along with initiative and referendum; the original Charter Commission
wanted to stay with a positive outlook when writing the charter, and recall was considered
a personal issue as opposed to issue oriented. The Intent was for the charter to address
the issues and not the people. Moved by Willis, seconded by Penningroth, to remove N9
recall from the agenda as a discussion item. Motion carried, 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Willis referred to correspondence received from then Asst. City Atty. Dick Boyle, dated
December 10, 1984, regarding CRC recommendations. Willis stated that the role of the
CRC should be to come up with things that the Commission believes to be sound public
policy. McDonald noted that he voted against the recommendation in 1984 because he
did not feel that the Commission was following the charge that was given to them,
McDonald stated that if a Commission comes forth with a recommendation that they
should take a position on that recommendation. Karr noted that in 1984 the issues were
the wording of the question as well as the endorsement of it. Moved by Willis, seconded
by Cain, that the Commission adopt as an operating principle that any recommendation
of action by the Commission be with the endorsement that the action is sound public
policy. Motion carded, 6 -0. Cain noted that Council, itself, can always propose a charter
amendment. Penningroth asked for an explanation on what Issues the Council can pass
on and which ones need to be forwarded to the public. McDonald said that Council acted
on non - substantive language changes but significant changes were submitted to the
voters. Karr explained that within 30 days of the publication of an ordinance amending
the Charter, citizens can petition a city election.
Willis requested that the meeting minutes include a front section of action items.
4
Commission members discussed their July meeting schedule and tentatively scheduled
meetings for July 14 and July 26. Karr stated she would contact McCullough, Rhodes and
Geasland regarding the meeting schedule.
Meeting adjourned at 6:45 PM.
7rr,:.....,,:: um
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
.101 Y 14, 1994 - 5:30 P.M.
COUNCIL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
John McDonald presiding. Charter Review Commission: McDonald, Geasland, McCullough,
Penningroth, Ringgenberg, Rhodes, Willis, Egli (6:4u p.m.). Absent: Cain. Staff preseni:
Karr, Smith. Tape recorded on Tapes 94 -3, Side 2; 944, Side 1,
COMMISSION ACTION
Moved by Ringgenberg, seconded by Rhodes, to approve the June 22, 1994, CRC meeting
minutes. Motion carried, 8/0, Cain absent.
Moved by McCullough, seconded by Penningroth that the term of City Council office remains
at four years. Motion passed, 6/2, Egli and Willis voting no, Cain absent.
CALL TO ORDER /APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Moved by Ringgenberg,
seconded by Rhodes to approve the June 22, 1994, CRC meeting minutes. Motion carried,
8/0, Cain absent.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. NON- DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS IN 2.08E, 4.04A(3), 5.02.
Penningroth distributed a handout: Non - Discriminatory Language (July 14, 1994).
Penningroth explained that language in the Charter, Section 2.08E, needs to be general
so that it doesn't conflict with or restrict language in the human rights chapter in the
Code or union contracts. Penningroth stated the word "must" is strong enough.
Penningroth proposed changing Section 4.04A(3) and 4.04A(4) to read:
Section 4.04A(3). Appoint or employ persons to occupy positions for
which no other method of appointment is provided by state law or this
chapter pursuant to Section 2.08E of this Charter.
Section 4.04A(4). Supervise the administration of City personnel
system, including the determination of the compensation (and the
promotion) of all City employees appointed by the City Manager subject
to state law or Section 2.08E of'this Charter.
Karr stated that Section 4.04A was based on the State Code. Karr recommended CRC
Commission request assistance from the City Attorney's Department if changes are
made to that section. Penningroth stated that the City Manager should be required to
follow the same kind of guidelines that City Council has to follow in terms of
appointments and promotions.
J
Charter Review Commission
July 14, 1994
Page 2
Penningroth stated that after researching the human rights chapter of the City Code
and sections of the State Code, she found no reason not to strengthen or add more
specific language to Section 5.02 of the Charter. Penningroth proposed the following
change to Section 5.02:
The Council shall, subject to the requirements of state law, make every
effort to provide broad representation on all boards. Factors to be
considered in broad representation shall include, but not be limited to,
employment status, place of residence, political affiliation, age, color,
creed, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, and
sexual orientation, The Council,...
Karr stated the City does have non - discriminatory language in the City Code, as well
as union contracts, personnel policies, Section 504, ADA regulations, housing, assisted
housing, etc. Karr recommended that if changes are made to the Charter to include
such language, the CRC should seek advice from the City Attorney to ensure that it
does not conflict with the provisions that are already in place.
Geasland reported that she favors the proposed language changes because of her
recent experience with a Senior Center Commission appointment. Geasland stated
stronger language is needed to support the position the City is attempting to have a
balance on all boards and commissions. Willis questioned whether the results would
be altered by changes in the Charter. Willis stated that elected representatives already
make balanced board appointments; and explained that with the aspirational language
in the charter, the political culture, and absent any specific examples, the proposed
changes are not needed. Penningroth said language should be stated in the Charter
that is reflective of the culture of Iowa City. McCullough asked how the appointers
are supposed to know which applicantees fit into which categories. Penningroth said
that if you don't state things explicitiy, some of those considerations implicitly get
ignored and you end up with the same type of person on your boards. Willis stated
that balanced appointments to boards and commissions is thought about as a political
matter and not as a constitutional matter. McDonald stated that appointments made
by Council were political and gender balance was always considered. Rhodes stated
that the "every effort" language is very vague, could have problems with interpretation
and could be subject to challenge. Rhodes stated that she Is more comfortable with
s;
language "non- discriminating against" accompanied with a list of people in different
'4
categories. Rhodes raised concerns that a lot of candidates would not come forward
if they have to disclose some things. Penningroth said the State Code states "shall
seek" and that language is weak and needs to be strengthened. Penningroth said the
'
language should be put in a positive light. Karr noted that place of residence
y
requirements already exist for appointments by requiring applicants to be Iowa City
residents. Penningroth stated that social class is not addressed in any of the language
+sz
in the Code or human rights provisions. In response to Willis, Penningroth stated that
< <<.
social class is a factor in Iowa City. Ringgenberg asked if people have to apply to be
a;
appointed to the board or commission. Karr stated yes. Ringgenberg stated that the
intent should be for all boards and commissions to have broad representation. Willis',
,a -; «I, t. 4f e.a�..i:£'u•� -.Fri ii.�£��4in�.bmara i •F .,,
Charter Review Commission
July 14, 1994
Page 3
stated that there is broad representation and the elected people are very conscientious
about that.
CRC agreed to continue discussion of this item at their next meeting.
2. CITY MANAGER DUTIES.
Ringgenberg asked if the City Manager duties were taken verbatim from the State
Code. Karr stated the State Code lists City.Manager duties. Geasland stated the
question was directed toward the differences between "supervise" and "manage."
Members agreed to retaining the section, and removing the item from further agendas.
3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE.
McCullough reported the State has no individual limitations but the City does, adding
that campaign finance disclosure is enforced at the state level. McCullough stated
campaign finance disclosure is filed at the County Auditor's office but there is no local
follow -up enforcement. Karr stated it is very confusing for the candidates and citizens.
Willis stated that state rules provide enforcement. McCullough stated there are full
report and disclosure requirements at the state level. McCullough stated the City $50
limitation is not sufficient to starts someone's own campaign and questioned if
something more needed to be done in addition to the state's current requirement.
Ringgenberg stated the problem is in the City Code establishing a lirnit and not the
Charter provision allowing a limit be established by ordinance.
Penningroth suggested adding campaign financial disclosure topic to the list of items
discussed with former Council members and candidates.
In response to Ringgenberg, Karr stated that Council has not asked to change the
current limitations. McDonald stated that he felt Council would appreciate direction
from CRC regarding the campaign financial disclosure regulations: Willis raised
concerns about enforceability.
CRC agreed to add campaign financial disclosure as a topic to be discussed with
former Council members and candidates.
4. ELECTIONS.
A. Primary Process.
CRC discussed pest primaries. In response to Willis, Karr stated there are State.
Code requirements. McCullough stated the State Code allows cities to choose
different ways to set up elections, including primary system and runoff system.
McCullough said most of these use the primary or runoff system. Karr
explained that in district primaries in Iowa City only the districts vote but in
general elections, everyone votes. Karr stated that she will provide CRC
members the State Code primary process provisions. McCullough said he is
0
Charter Review Commission
July 14, 1994
Page 4
unsure if the primary process needs to be changed, het it chnuld he discussed.
McDonald said district voting processes confusing to people. In response to
Ringgenberg, Karr stated election costs depend upon if the election is at large
or for districts and the number of people on the ballot. Willis said that th^
expense to help people be clear about voting is worth it. Penningroth stated
that part of the problem is in the timing of the primary election with the general
election. McCullough said increasing the number of candidates allowed to run
in the general election would eliminate some primaries. Penningroth said that
the number of candidates triggering a primary could be changed in the Charter.
Karr stated research would have to be conducted to see if that is allowable.
B. Term of Office.
Willis stated that four years is a long time for a Council term. Ringgenberg
stated that the State Code states terms are to be two or four years. McDonald
stated that four years is not too long and that a person would always be
campaigning if a two -year term system were implemented. Ringgenberg stated
that overlapping terms is good and allows for continuity of City Council and
government. CRC discussed terms of office. Willis stated that two -year
commitments are easier to make. McDonald stated that it takes time to learn
what to do. Willis stated there would be more involvement in the community
if the commitment was less than four years.
Moved by McCullough, seconded by Penningroth, that the term of office remain
four years. Motion passed, 6/2, Egli and Willis voting no, Cain absent.
CRC agreed to set a date in September to invite former Council members and candidates to
a CRC meeting to address the elections process. CRC agreed to schedule discussion of Mayor
selection process, Council districts, and Council compensation at their next meeting.
STAFF INPUT
Karr reported that City staff department directors were contacted and four departments
responded as outlined in the (July 14) staff Input handout.
MEETING SCHFDUI F
CRC tentatively scheduled their next meetings for August 3, 1994, and August 17, 1994.
CRC directed McDonald to set the date in September to invite former Council members and
candidates to a CRC meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
dMM1nct•l s.nV,
i
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 31, 1994 — 5:40 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
Jcl;n McDonald presiding, Charter Review Commission: McDonald, Cain, Geasland,
McCullough, Penningroth, Willis, Rhodes (5:45 p.m.), Egli (5:50 p.m.). Absent: Ringgenberg.
Staff present: Karr, Gentry, Smith. Tape recorded on Tapes CRC -4, Side 2; CRC -5, Side 1.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Moved by Willis, seconded by Geasland, to approve July 14, 1994, CRC minutes as
corrected. Motion carried, 6 /0, Rhodes, Egli and Ringgenberg absent.
Moved by Cain, seconded by Penningroth, to add language to Charter Section 2.08E to read:
"All appointments and promotions of City employees by City Council and City Manager must
be made..." Motion carried 6/2, Willis and Egli voting no, Ringgenberg absent.
CALL TO ORDER /APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Moved by Willis, seconded
by Geasland, to approve the July 14, 1994, CRC meeting minutes. Penningroth asked that
the July 14, 1994, minutes, page 2, ninth line from bottom, be changed to read "Penningroth
said the charter states "shall seek "... Motion to accept minutes as corrected carried, 6 /0,
Rhodes, Egli and Ringgenberg absent.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Non- discriminatory provisions 2.08E, 4.04A(3), 5.02.
Penningroth explained this item was placed back on the agenda in order to receive
comments from the City Attorney.
Charter Review Commission reviewed Charter Sections 2.08E, 4.04A(3), 4.04A(4),
and 5.02 and Penningroth's July 14, 1994, non - discriminatory language handout.
Penningroth stated in Section 2.08E she originally felt there should be a list of areas
or conditions for non- discriminatory behavior. Gentry explained it is easier to
incorporate the city, state and federal codes rather than include a list of areas or
conditions for non-discriminatory behavior which often changes.
Penningroth said there isn't anything about non - discriminatory behavior in terms of
appointments or compensation in Section 4.04 - duties of the City Manager. Cain
suggested rewriting Section 2.08E by adding Section 2.08F to incorporate, "All
appointments and promotions of City employees must be made according tojob - related
criteria..." Gentry said to avoid problems with state pre - emption, Section 2.08 could
end after the first sentence and Section 2.08F could read "All appointments made by
the Council and City Manager shall be..." In response to Willis, Gentry said the City
Council could make the change by ordinance, rather than an election. Gentry explained
r
y ■,
® a- ...ice, s. ..4 f1. .... u.. y'Y� . .i. �i�iLlti�'iiAifi�i�0iwiik� «• z�iRb.�.i�?�f �'. r_.a „c. � ... L <. u,ei .e.Y
Charter Review Commission
August 31, 1994
Page 2
that the charter for purposes of the anti - discriminatory language will have no greater
independent authority than Title VII - federal employment taw and Chapter 261 - state
employment law.
Penningroth referred to Section 5.02. In response to Penningroth, Gentry said the City
has no obligation to be gender- balanced under state law. Penningroth said she wanted
to make sure that her proposed wording for Section 5.02 does not go against state
law. Willis raised concerns that the list of factors to be considered in Penningroth's
nrnposed language for Section 5.02 would require a check -off on the boards and
commissions application; it would prompt board and commission appointments to be
based on extrinsic characteristics unrelated to the performance of the job; and, in fact,
the City's elected representatives do take broad representation into consideration.
Gentry raised concerns about omitting a specific group. Penningroth emphasized that
if you are not explicit about broad representation on all boards, it doesn't get paid
attention to. Karr said the supplemental application sheets used in conjunction with
board and commission application forms to obtain additional information are often left
blank. Gentry stated she reads "broad representation" as "diversity" and whatever is
"politically correct" now may change in ten years. Cain said the intent was for broad
representation to include diverse ethnic representation and a diverse economic status.
Karr suggested that a "broad representation" or "diversity" statement could be
included in the boards and commissions application or the vacancy notice itself rather
than in the charter.
Charter Review Commission members considered taking the second sentence out of
Section 2.08E fall appointments and promotions of City employees...) and make it
stand alone for both the Council and City Manager. Karr noted that Article II deals
with the City Council only. Charter Review Commission members and City staff
discussed Section 2.08E and Section 4.04A. Penningroth stated the charter is weak
on including non - discriminatory language; the City Manager is not bound to use non-
discriminatory methods for compensation or appointing employees; and the charter
does not contain strong enough language for broad representation on boards and
commissions. Gentry disagreed, since the "City Manager" section of the charter states
the manager must comply with state and federal law — which includes anti-
discrimination laws. Willis said the charter's language, combined with the City's
practices, the federal regulatory structure and political restraints, are adequate,
althoughFenningroth's proposed changes do send a message about non - discrimination
and broad representation. McDonald reminded Charter Review Commission members
that if the majority of the Commission agrees that a change is needed, the Commission
has a responsibility to send a specific recommendation to Council.
Moved by Cain, seconded by Penningroth, to add Section 2.08E language (All
appointments and promotions of City employees...) to Section 4.04A(3). Gentry
suggested changing Section 2.08E to read "All employment of City employees
appointed by City Council and City Manager must be made..." Gentry raised concerns
that "appointments" and "promotions" excludes language addressing discharge, rehire,
supervision, discipline, etc. Rhodes commented that "employment" is vague. Charter
Review Commission discussed Gentry's proposed language change. Gentry suggested
Charter Review Commission
August 31, 1994
Page 3
another option to changing Section 2.08E, "All appointments and promotions of City
employees by City Council and City Manager must be made..." Moved by Cain,
seconded by Penningroth, to add language to Section 2.08E to read, "All appointments
and promotions of City employees by City Councii and City Manager must be made..."
Motion carried, 6/2, Willis and Egli voting "no," Ringgenberg absent.
._
Charter Review Commission reviewed -the draft letter, Dear Former Council Members and
Candidates submitted by Chair McDonald. Members agreed to change the second item under
"Elections" to read "District candidates elected at large versus by district "; and agreed to
invite former Council members and candidates to a'September 28, 1994, Charter Review
Commission meeting for comments.
McDonald reminded Charter Review Commission members the next Charter Review
Commission meeting is scheduled September 14, 1994. The purpose of that meeting will be
to formulate questions for the public hearing September 28 with former Council members and
candidates.
Charter Review Commission discussed scheduling a general public hearing. Cain suggested
holding a public hearing early to accept comments from the public and scheduling a second
public hearing to receive input about specific Charter Review Commission recommendations
prior to submission to Council. Charter Review Commission agreed to schedule a general
public hearing on October 26, 1994, 7:00 p.m. Willis suggested televising the October 26
hearing and accepting call -in comments.
Meeting adjourned 6:50 p.m.
wnnKe.ai.�
0
EUIP
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - 5:35 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
John McDonald presiding. Charter Review Commission: McDonald, Cain, Egli, Geasland,
McCullough, Penningroth, Ringgenberg, Willis. Absent: Rhodes. City staff present: Karr,
Smith. Tape recorded on Tapes CRC 94 -5, Side 2; i ;;C 94 -6, Side 1.
COMMISSION ACTION
Moved by Willis, seconded by Ringgenberg, to approve the August 31, 1994 CRC meeting
minutes. Motion to accept minutes as corrected carried, 8 -0, Rhodes absent.
Formulation of questions for public hearing with former Council Members and candidates
approved as listed on attachment.
CALL TO ORDER /APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Moved by Willis, seconded
by Ringgenberg, to approve the August 31, 1994 CRC minutes. Cain asked that the August
31 minutes, page 2, paragraph 3, be corrected to read that the original motion was
withdrawn. Motion to accept minutes as corrected carried, 8 -0, Rhodes absent.
FORMAL QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING 9/28 WITH FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS OR
CANDIDATES.
Chairperson McDonald asked CRC members to prepare questions for former council members
or candidates. McDonald noted that Bill Ambrisco wants to speak to CRC about Council
Districts. Karr noted previous correspondence from Ambrisco had been sent earlier but stated
that she will provide CRC members with another copy.
CRC discussed the format for the 9/28 meeting. Penningroth said there should be time for
both presentations by former council members and candidates, and round table discussion.
j McDonald said there would be opportunity for discussion on specific issues as noted in his
September letter. Cain stated discussion should include specific topics for discussion.
McCullough asked if there should be specific questions asked about initiative and referendum.
r Cain explained that discussion could start out with CRC questions on the general topic areas.
Willis stated that the anecdotal campaign experiences from former council members and
M candidates will provide valuable information. Cain suggested that topics follow the outline
starting first with election (district size, district candidate elected at -large vs. by district);
campaign finance disclosure; Mayor selection process; and then council compensation. in
response to Karr, Ringgenberg stated there should be a printed agenda with a list of the
topics. Cain suggested that the chair should have one or two questions to start off each topic
area. Karr reminded CRC members that the meeting is scheduled for 5:30 -7:00 p.m. and
discussion should be timed accordingly.
Ringgenberg said that questions should be phrased, In your experience, what are the
advantages or disadvantages of ..." Ringgenberg suggested that each CRC member select
a topic and formulate a question, and offered to prepare a terms of office question.
Penningroth stated that she will work on the election /district's topic. McDonald explained that
at one time all five council members lived within a four -block area of each other, and that was
one of the reasons districting was considered prior to the implementation of the charter in
1974. Cain agreed that a reason for the districting was geographic dispersion.
MIA
MINUTES
CHART ER REVIEW COMMISSION
PAGE 2
Penningroth requested information about the statistics on the number of votes, precinct totals,
and the primary and general election results. Karr stated that she will research election
precinct totals /district totals back to 1984, and 1974 time permitting.
Geasland stated that neighborhood associations are playing a more important role in cam-
paign /election /district processes.. McDonald stated that the formation of neighborhood
associatione have changed politics because of specific issues coming from each neighborhood.
CRC members discussed district campaigning versus running at- large. Cain stated that the
idea was for a Council member to represent his or her district but must also have concerns
for the City at- large. Willis stated that the City's resource allocation system is not based on
where you live and to get to "district- versity" is to invite the resource allocations system to
work that way. Cain explained that the district concept, a system whereby you could be
nominated from the district and elected at- large, originally came out of Texas and was devised
so that minorities could be elected.
McCullough stated there should be some specific questions on campaign finance.
Ringgenberg said he would be interested in hearing comments about initiative and referendum.
In response to Willis, McCullough stated that he is interested in asking about the number of
Council members. Cain stated that one of the reasons the charter established a seven
member council was because the original charter commission had nine members and it was
found cumbersome to get anything done.
McCullough stated he wants people's reactions to the primary system. Cain suggested
asking, "do you like a system that has a primary election, do you like a system that has a
runoff, or would you like a system where the highest vote getter is elected, egardless if that
person has a majority?" Penningroth said she would like to hear about any problems
associated with conducting two campaigns, primary and general.
Karr stated she will work with McDonald to prepare an agenda including the questions to be
asked by the chair.
McCullough asked how to pose the Mayor selection process question. McDonald said that
former council members should be able to respond to the question about the Mayor selection
process. Cain stated the original charter commission considered options including having the
Mayor run separately for an at -large seat, or having the Mayor only be elected from the four
at -large seats. Cain asked if the charge to the CRC would allow them to devise a system
whereby the Mayor was elected separately. Penningroth said yes. McDonald said there is
a strong number of people who would like the strong Mayor form of government rather than
the current way it is done. Egli said he would be interested in hearing if former council
members felt there were any hard feelings after the Mayor selection process that affected
their ability to work together.
MEETING SCHEDULE
McDonald announced meetings were scheduled September 28, October 12, and October 26.
Karr stated she is working with Cable TV for the October 26 public hearing.
Meeting adjourned 6:45 p.m.
r
_ r
4
Based on your own campaign experiences, were there any unreasonable barriers posed - -nur
camr,signing based on the primary system? .
For.the people who were elected and served, were there any problems with powers of Council?
Terms of Office?
Do you campaign differently for a district versus at -large seats?
Are the concerns for people in your district and voters at -large different?
When considering an issue did you look at it from a district point of view first and the City
second?
Did you receive calls from people in your district?
Should there be more districting because of the greater involvement of neighborhood
associations?
Number of Council members?
Do you like a system that has a primary election, do you like a system that has a runoff, or would
you like a system whereby the highest vote - getter is elected regardless if that person has a
majority?
Were you comfortable with a primary and then general election process? Would you rather run
in just one election?
Are there any problems with conducting two campaigns, primary and general?
1 e Campaign Finance Disclosure
Are there any problems with campaign financial disclosure regulations?
Did you find it confusing that campaign financial disclosure enforcement mechanism is done at
the state level?
e Mayor Selection Process
Were there any hard feelings after the Mayor selection process that affected how Council worked
together? .
e Council compensation
Did Council compensation effect your candidacy?
cVxlic 9.14.rM
Imt
A4INU _ES
"
CHARrFR REVIEW COMMISSION
PArE3
Attachment
QUESTIONS:
e Elections
Based on your own campaign experiences, were there any unreasonable barriers posed - -nur
camr,signing based on the primary system? .
For.the people who were elected and served, were there any problems with powers of Council?
Terms of Office?
Do you campaign differently for a district versus at -large seats?
Are the concerns for people in your district and voters at -large different?
When considering an issue did you look at it from a district point of view first and the City
second?
Did you receive calls from people in your district?
Should there be more districting because of the greater involvement of neighborhood
associations?
Number of Council members?
Do you like a system that has a primary election, do you like a system that has a runoff, or would
you like a system whereby the highest vote - getter is elected regardless if that person has a
majority?
Were you comfortable with a primary and then general election process? Would you rather run
in just one election?
Are there any problems with conducting two campaigns, primary and general?
1 e Campaign Finance Disclosure
Are there any problems with campaign financial disclosure regulations?
Did you find it confusing that campaign financial disclosure enforcement mechanism is done at
the state level?
e Mayor Selection Process
Were there any hard feelings after the Mayor selection process that affected how Council worked
together? .
e Council compensation
Did Council compensation effect your candidacy?
cVxlic 9.14.rM
Imt
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 - 5:35 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
John McDonald presiding. Charter Review Commission: McDonald, Cain, Egli, Geasland,
McCullough, Penningroth, Ringgenberg, Willis. Ahsc ^t: Rhodes. City staff present: Y.urr.
Othe s Present: Courtney, Balmer, Smith. Tape recorded on Tapes CRC 94.6, Side 2; CRC
94 -7, All.
COMMISSION ACTION
Moved by Cain, seconded by McCullough to approve the September 14, 1994 CRC minutes.
Motion to accept minutes carried, 8/0, Rhodes absent.
CALL TO ORDER /APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Moved by Cain, seconded
by McCullough to approve the September 14, 1994 CRC minutes. Motion to accept minutes
carried, 8/0. Rhodes absent.
McDonald stated that the Charter Review Public Hearing was rescheduled to November 2,
1994 because of the scheduling conflict with a League of Women Voters event,
FORMAL QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC IC HEAgjG WITH FORM a COUNCIL MFMBERS OR
CANDIDATES
McDonald noted that correspondence was received from former Council Members William
Ambrisco and Randy Larson regarding Charter Review.
Charter Review Commission presented questions to former Council members /candidates John
Balmer, Darryl Courtney and Jill Smith.
McDonald asked for comments about the present system whereby candidates running for a
district seat are elected only by the district in a primary election and by the City at -large in the
general election. McDonald commented that both Bill Ambrisco and Randy Larson stated they
would like to do away with the present district system. Courtney stated the district bound-
aries need to be redrawn; he would add a fourth district; and he supports having representa-
tives from the different geographic areas of Iowa City. Egli asked Courtney if he voted
differently as a district council member versus an at -large council member. Courtney said very
seldom but he did have a strong commitment to the sewer issues because his district has
sewer problems. Geasland asked Courtney if he was contacted primarily by persons that lived
within his district. Courtney stated he was contacted primarily by downtown business people
and at school events. Cain asked for comments about being nominated from the district but
being elected at- large. Courtney stated that citizens do not understand the primary process.
F, Smith stated she supports the current district representation; there needs to be a way to
better educate the public about the district and primary process; and that the future growth
of Iowa City and the establishment of neighborhood associations will have an impact on i
district representation that will need to be addressed before the next Charter Review (year
2004). In response to McDonald, Smith stated that there should be a majority of at -large
`` Council members versus district Council members. Courtney suggested adding a fourth
f� district representative but keeping the total number of Council members at seven. Balmer
spoke in favor of retaining the present system of four at -large Council members and three
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
PAGE 2
district Council members. Balmer explained the present system was established in the original
Charter as a compromise between persons wanting a strictly at -large Council and parsons
wanting a ward system. Balmer said Iowa City is still small enough that people want the
opportunity to vote on all of their elected officials. Balmer said it is important to have some
geographic representation. Karr noted that the disi4i,; ?:o n between representatives being fiom
d geographic area and elected by the City as a whole versus from a geographic location and
elected by that geographic location. Courtney said adding a fourth representative doesn't take
away from the at -large "feel" of the Council. Geasland asked why the original Charter
Commission decided that candidates running for a district seat are elected only by the district
in a primary election. Cain explained the idea was the best people from the district should
then go on to the full election. Willis said a primary with a residency requirement would
accomplish the same thing. Ringgenberg stated the option exists that if an area does not feel
represented they can get people to run at- large. Cain said there are ways to address neighbor-
hood association representation such as by having Council as a whole appoint liaisons to the
neighborhood associations.
Ringgenberg asked about the four year terms of office. Balmer stated the four years is just
right and that four years gives a Council member the opportunity to become conversant in
issues and to be a team player and contributor. McDonald stated that a person would feel like
they are constantly campaigning if the term of office was any shorter. In response to
Penningroth, McDonald stated the present district system works well and he would not like
to see it changed. Egli stated he would want consistency where a district representative is
nominated and elected by its own district or nominated and elected at- Imrge. Courtney
commented that the current district system has merit because the districts get to choose the
kind of representative they would like to have. Cain stated the original charter commission
wanted a geographic representation and to get someone who is familiar with the area.
McDonald asked how the Charter Review Commission felt when the district candidate carried
the district but lost the election. McDonald noted that it has occuffad three times since 1977.
Penningroth said the issue should be discussed by the Charter Review Commission.
McCullough asked if anyone would be in favor of changing the present primary- general
election system. Balmer and Smith stated their support for the primary system. Balmer
stated the process has worked very well for Iowa City. Cain asked about campaign costs.
Smith stated that consideration was given to minimize campaign expenses up to the primary
election. McDonald stated that during his campaign costs of the primary had to be taken into
consideration and budgeted for. Courtney stated it is herd to raise money during the primary.
McCullough asked about costs for the City for holding two elections. Courtney said he would
like to change the special election process. In response to Charter Review Commission
members, Karr stated the state allows you to make the appointment' or call a special election.
She explained that a petition could be filed after an appointment was made, triggering a
special election. Ringgenberg asked if the City could allow primaries in the regular election
process but not in the special election process. Kerr stated that she would check with the
legal department.
Balmer thanked Charter Review Commission members for their efforts. Balmer stated he
would retain both the present Mayor selection process and fifty dollar campaign contribution
limitation. Balmer said the Council compensation should not be accelerated to a higher level.
(Balmer left meeting.)
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
PAGE 3
Regarding options for special elections, Karr explained that according to State Code, Section
376 City elections, a primary election must be held if the number Ming is more than twico thu
number of positions to be filled unless you choose the runoff or chapter 44 -45. Karr said she
will ask the City Attorney if a Council can choose and /or the Charter can provide for another
option, in the case of a special election.
McDonald asked for comments regarding campaign contribution limitations. Smith replied that
information received when nomination papers are picked up that the City Clerk's office
provides the information needed for candidates to understand the local requirements and there
have not been any problems due to the lack of local enforcement mechanism because of the
strong character and honesty of people running for local government. McDonald said there
is some confusion because of the different regulations by the state and Iowa City. Courtney
questioned the validity of having a more restrictive contribution limitation without local
enforcement. In response to Penningroth, Karr stated complaints are handled by the state.
Charter Review Commission discussed enforcement of the local campaign contribution
limitation. Cain stated the original Charter Review Commission felt very strongly that there
should be limits. Ringgenberg stated that even though Iowa City is inconsistent with the
state, home rule could play an important role if Iowa City is legally challenged for having more
restrictive limitations. Ringgenberg stated Cities ought to be able to do what they want to
do within the framework of the state law. in response to Egli, McDonald stated the fifty dollar
limitation is a good amount. In response to McDonald, Karr stated the City Code section
dealing with the limitation has been changed six times since 1974. Egli stated he liked the
fifty dollar limitation because candidates have to talk to more people. McCullough asked
about getting start-up funds for their campaigns. It was noted a candidate can start by
getting a bank loan or a personal loan.
McDonald inquired about the Mayor selection process. Smith stated that it appears that a
majority of the time the Mayor selection process seems to function well. Courtney stated he
approached the Mayor selection process as another campaign. McDonald said the process
works, and stated that if the process were changed so that the Mayors elected at- large, the
Mayor's role should be changed. McDonald explained that when the Mayor is elected by the
Council that Mayor has the support of at least three other Council members which aids
consensus building whereas an elected Mayor could be at odds with his entire council.
Charter Review Commission discussed Mayor selection options. Courtney noted that there
have been objections to the 'behind closed doors" selection of the Mayor. McDonald said in
the past few years there has been more made about the behind the doors selection than what
really exists. In response to McCullough, McDonald said public input isn't received because
the selection is made by the Council. Ringgenberg said an elected Mayor becomes more than
part of a policy team and in a council - manager form of government you should try to keep the
Mayor as the policy leader rather than get into administration.
In response to Egli, Courtney said Council salaries should be increased periodically in small
increments and the Mayor's salary should be at a wider spread. Courtney noted that school
board ought to be paid. Smith said salaries should be enough to cover costs incurred by
Council members. McCullough asked if a compensation commission should be established
to review Council compensation every two years. Courtney and Smith said no, in response
to Courtney, McDonald said Council and Mayor compensation is currently $5,000 and $6,000
and it was last raised in 1964. McDonald said the current Council compensation is adequate.
In response to McDonald, Karr explained it is difficult to compare Iowa City Council salaries
with other communities because of different variables.
dft
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
PAGE 4
Gessland encouraged everyone to come to the public hearing scheduled November 2, 1994.
Karr noted the next CRC meeting is scheduled for October 12, 1994.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
e.aa�
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1994 - 5:35 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
John McDonald presiding. Charter Review Commission: McDonald, Cain, Egli, Geasland, McCullough,
Penningroth, Rhodes, Willis. Absent: Ringgenberg. Staff present: Karr, Smith. Tape recorded on Tapes
CRC 94.8, Side 1.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Moved by Wills, seconded by Egli, to approve the September 28, 1994, CRC minutes. Motion to accept
minutes carried, 8/0, Ringgenberg absent.
CALL TO ORDER /APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Moved by Willis, seconded by Egli, to approve
the September 28, 1994, CRC minutes. Motidn to accept minutes carried, 8/0, Ringgenberg absent.
GENERAL DISCUSSION /MEETING SCHEDULE:
McDonald explained that items listed on the agenda are carryover items and detailed discussion will occur
after the public hearing.
McDonald. reviewed the schedule of upcoming Charter Review meetings as follows:
November 2 — public hearing (7:00.9:00 p.m.)
November 16 — regular meeting — formulation of recommendations (5:30.7:00 p.m.)
November 30 — regular meeting — formulation of recommendations (5:30 -7:00 p.m.)
McDonald stated that CRC could possibly hold a second public hearing after the Charter Review Commission
prepares its final recommendations. Rhodes said that if the Charter Review Commission makes technical
changes or changes that are not structural, a public hearing will not be needed. Rhodes said that if major
changes are made another public hearing should be held. If needed McDonald said a second public hearing
could be held at the end of January to avoid scheduling conflicts with the holidays and the University winter
break.
City Clerk Karr noted that CRC members received a copy of Gentry's October 10 memo regarding their
inquiry: is a primary election required for a special election?
McDonald stated that he has not received much input about the charter and therefore the public hearing could
be short. in response to Karr, CRC members said the purpose of the November 2 meeting is for a public
hearing and there will not be any additional discussion after the public hearing is closed. Geasland suggested
that at the November 2 public hearing McDonald present a brief historical overview of the charter and the
review process. Karr stated that the press releases will go out for the Chamber of Commerce newsletter and
to local media regarding the November 2 public hearing. in response to Cain, Penningroth noted that she has
contacted the League of Women Voters regarding the public hearing. Cain encouraged attendance by the
League of Women Voters members. In response to Penningroth, McDonald stated that the City Attorney
should attend the public hearing to address any legal questions. Geasland requested that overhead
projections or maps be prepared for the public hearing showing the Iowa City districts and Council
representation. Karr stated she can prepare maps detailing the districts and Council at -large /district
representation and will work with Cable N. McDonald emphasized CRC members' attendance at the
November meetings. Cain noted that she will have to leave the November 16 meeting early to attend a
League of Women Voters meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. do 1012.,wi
f��
P_.__1
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 2, 1994 - 7:00 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
John McDonald presiding. Charter Review Commission: McDonald, Cain, Egli, Geasland,
McCullough, Penningroth, Rhodes, Willis, Ringgenberg. Staff present: Karr. Tape recorded
on Tape CRC 94.8, Side 2.
(This public hearing was cablecast live and statements were received in person or by
telephone.)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Charter Review Commission Chair McDonald stated that the purpose of the public hearing is
to receive citizen input about the charter. McDonald introduced Charter Review Commission
members. McDonald explained the Charter Review Commission was appointed by the City
Council to review the charter. McDonald stated the original charter was adopted in 1974 and
the charter is like a constitution of the city in that it broadly defines how city government
works, as well as how the City Council is elected. McDonald stated that the Charter Review
Commission, in 1973, provided for the establishment of the Charter Review Commission at
least one every ten years for the purpose of reviewing the city charter. The Charter Review
Commission, in 1974, was chaired by William Meardon and John Balmer chaired the 1984
Charter Review Commission. McDonald explained that this year's Charter Review
Commission focused on elections, Mayor selection process, campaign finance disclosure and
Council compensation. McDonald stated that the Charter Review Commission will prepare
final recommendations to City Council.
McDonald noted that a map of the city delineating the City's three Council districts is available
(and was displayed on an overhead for the television audience). McDonald explained that all
Council members serve four -year terms, the Council is made up of four at -large Council
members plus three Council district members, and a person running for a district seat must
be a resident of that district. McDonald stated that if a primary election is needed, voting is
restricted to residents of the.district and in the general election, all voters of the city may vote
for both at -large and district candidates.
McDonald said that telephone call comments will be received during the public hearing by
calling 356 -5017. McDonald noted that CRC members Patt Cain and Clayton Ringgenberg
are considered the resident Charter Commission historians because they both served on the
1974 original Charter Commission, the 1984 Charter Review Commission, and current Charter
Review Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
McDonald opened the public hearing.
Rusty Martin, 802 East Washington, appeared and proposed establishing six district Council
members and an at -large Mayor so that elected officials would directly represent neighbor-
hoods.
A07 (o I
Chatter Review Commission
November 2, 1994
Pago 2
Chris Randall appeared and stated that City Council members worked very hard and Council
compensation should be increased.
The Charter Review Commission received four,telephone calls during the public hearing. Two
callers stated Council members should represent districts; and concurred with comments
made by Rusty Martina Two other callers did not agree with the views of Mr. Martin,. stating
the current system is appropriate; and neighborhoods can be incorporated into the present
districts.
McDonald explained the Charter Review Commission has been reviewing the charter over the
last several months, the Commission has not made any final decisions, and the Commissions'
final recommendations will be forwarded to City Council. McDonald stated that any
substantial changes to the charter will need to be approved by the voters.
McDonald thanked all participants, and announced that all Charter Review Commission
members would welcome further comments about the charter.
McDonald declared the public hearing closed, 7:20 p.m.
cwk %=I 13.m
.,
Patt Cain presiding. Charter Review Commission. Cain, Egli, Geasland, McCullough,
Penningroth, Ringgenberg, Rhodes, Willis. Absent: McDonald. City staff present: Karr,
Smith. Tape recorded on Tape, CRC 94.9, All.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Moved by Rhodes, seconded Geasland to approve the October 12, 1994, and November 2,
1994, CRC minutes. Motion to accept minutes carried, 8/0, McDonald absent.
3.v . Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to move initiative and referendum to the resolved list.
Majority of CRC members agreed to delete election mechanism from the pending list.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to keep districts on the pending list for further
consideration. Motion carried, 8/0, McDonald absent.
Moved by Willis, seconded by McCullough, to keep Council size on the pending list for further
discussion. Motion carried, 8/0, McDonald absent.
Moved by McCullough, seconded by Willis, to keep campaign financial disclosure on the
pending list for further discussion. Motion carried, 8 /0, McDonald absent.
Moved by Ringgenberg, seconded by Egli, to move Mayor selection to the resolved list.
Motion carried, 7/1, Willis voting no, McDonald absent.
Moved by Egli, seconded by McCullough, to move Council compensation to the resolved list.
Motion carried, 6/2, Penningroth and Willis voting no, McDonald absent.
Moved by McCullough, seconded by Rhodes, to move limitation of term of office to the
resolved list. Motion carried, 7/1, Willis voting no, McDonald absent.
Moved by Rhodes, seconded by Willis, to not change Article VI, and requested the City
Attorney comment on Section 6.04. Motion carried, 7/1, McCullough voting no, McDonald
absent.
Acting Chair Cain called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Moved by Rhodes, seconded by
Geasland, to approve the October 12, 1994, and November 2, 1994, CRC minutes. Motion
to accept minutes carried, 8/0, McDonald absent.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 1994 - 5:35 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
.,
Patt Cain presiding. Charter Review Commission. Cain, Egli, Geasland, McCullough,
Penningroth, Ringgenberg, Rhodes, Willis. Absent: McDonald. City staff present: Karr,
Smith. Tape recorded on Tape, CRC 94.9, All.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Moved by Rhodes, seconded Geasland to approve the October 12, 1994, and November 2,
1994, CRC minutes. Motion to accept minutes carried, 8/0, McDonald absent.
3.v . Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to move initiative and referendum to the resolved list.
Majority of CRC members agreed to delete election mechanism from the pending list.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to keep districts on the pending list for further
consideration. Motion carried, 8/0, McDonald absent.
Moved by Willis, seconded by McCullough, to keep Council size on the pending list for further
discussion. Motion carried, 8/0, McDonald absent.
Moved by McCullough, seconded by Willis, to keep campaign financial disclosure on the
pending list for further discussion. Motion carried, 8 /0, McDonald absent.
Moved by Ringgenberg, seconded by Egli, to move Mayor selection to the resolved list.
Motion carried, 7/1, Willis voting no, McDonald absent.
Moved by Egli, seconded by McCullough, to move Council compensation to the resolved list.
Motion carried, 6/2, Penningroth and Willis voting no, McDonald absent.
Moved by McCullough, seconded by Rhodes, to move limitation of term of office to the
resolved list. Motion carried, 7/1, Willis voting no, McDonald absent.
Moved by Rhodes, seconded by Willis, to not change Article VI, and requested the City
Attorney comment on Section 6.04. Motion carried, 7/1, McCullough voting no, McDonald
absent.
Acting Chair Cain called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Moved by Rhodes, seconded by
Geasland, to approve the October 12, 1994, and November 2, 1994, CRC minutes. Motion
to accept minutes carried, 8/0, McDonald absent.
Charter Review Commission
November 16, 1994
Page 2
OVERVIEW OF ISSUES:
City Clerk Karr presented an outline of pending, rocnlved and recommendation issues
rOIIUWs:
Pending
Resolved Recommendations
Elections
Council /management form Non - discrimination
Nominating and electing district
City Manager duties
Primary and general voting
2.10 vacancies
Mechanism
Term of office
Districts
Recall
Number
Representation
Neighborhood
Council size
Initiative and referendum
Campaign finance disclosures
Follow -up enforcement
Discrepancy between local
and state requirements
$50 limitation
Mayor selection process
Council compensation
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. Cain stated she would like to not change the charter's
initiative and referendum. Rhodes noted that CRC received the article, California's Elected
Anarchy. Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to move initiative and referendum to the
resolved list. \too + ;or cq,r-,e_N N 4`o Nlbsc,rt ,
CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE. Penningroth asked about campaign financial disclosure
and campaign contribution limitation. Karr stated the limitation on campaign contributions is
set out in the City Code Section 1 -9 -2 (formerly Chapter 10, Elections). Karr explained the
charter allows Council to set-the limitation. Karr noted that there is a difference in the state
and local campaign financial disclosure provisions.
ELECTION MECHANISM. A majority of CRC members agreed to delete election mechanism
from the pending list.
ELECTION DISTRICTS. Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to keep districts on the
pending list for further consideration. Motion carried, 810.
COUNCIL SIZE. Moved by Willis, seconded by McCullough, to keep Council size on the
pending list for further discussion. Motion carried, 8/0.
CAMPAIGN FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE. Moved by McCullough, seconded by Willis, to keep
campaign financial disclosure on the pending list for further discussion. Motion carried, 8/0.
I( R
Chaster Review Commission
Novernber' 16, 1994
Page 3
MAYOR SELECTION. Moved by Ringgenberg, seconded by Egli, to move Mayor selection to
the resolved list. Motion carried, 7/1, Willis voting no.
('RC agreed that motions to reconsider issues shou;C occur under the rules of order requiring
a super majority.
COUNCIL COMPENSATION. Moved by Egli, seconded by McCullough, to move Council
compensation to the resolved list. Motion carried, 6/2, Penningroth and Willis voting no.
TERM OF OFFICE. Karr reviewed the resolved list. Willis asked about limitation of number
of terms. Willis noted that CRC agreed the tenure for a single term should remain four years.
Karr stated CRC received May 23 correspondence from Iowans for Term Limits requesting the
matter be placed on the ballot. Moved by McCullough, seconded by Rhodes, to move
limitation of term of office to the resolved list. Motion carried, 7/1, Willis voting no.
Cain summarized that elections, districts, Council size and campaign financial disclosure as
pending issues that need to be discussed. Penningroth commented on the election result
figures distributed at the September 28 meeting and distributed statistics of Iowa City election
results 1977 -1993. Karr said that satellite and absentee voting figures do not show up in the
precinct totals. Penningroth stated three times the candidate who was elected by the district
was not elected to Council.
Ringgenberg inquired about CRC schedule and the timing of recommendations to Council.
Cain stated CRC talked about holding a second public hearing the latter part of January or
early February after the CRC has decided upon recommendations but prior to forwarding those
recommendations to City Council. Karr stated that the Commission wanted to hold a second
public hearing if the recommendations were substantive, noting any ballot issues need to be
sent to the auditor by the end of August for a November election. Rhodes stated that the
Charter Review Commission should establish preliminary recommendations, hold a public
_ hearing if needed in January, and forward the recommendations to Council by the end of
February or first of March. Karr stated that the Council does not have the authority to extend
the life of the Charter Review Commission beyond May 10, 1995. Cain pointed out
advantages to completing the review process prior to summer. Karr handed out a November
16 Email message received from Rusty Martin asking for CRC members' availability for talk
show programs.
CRC members discussed drafting recommendations or proposals. Rhodes suggested that CRC
subcommittees could highlight the issues or present proposals. Karr said draft recommenda-
tions could be mailed out in the CRC packets next Wednesday 0 1/23) prior to the November
30 meeting.
Rhodes asked if a computer program is available to present a geographical breakdown of Iowa
City based on population. Karr explained districts' breakdowns are based on census figures.
Cain said that everyone should look at the districts' issues. Ringgenberg said the Commission
should plan to consider elections, districts and Council size at their next two meetings.
Commission members agreed to address campaign financial disclosure issues later in the
meeting.
Charter Review Commission
November 16, 1994
Page 4
CRC tentatively scheduled their next two meetings for November 30, 1994, and December
7, 1994. A tentative date of December 14 was also reserved. Everyone agreed to prepare
proposals relating to elections, districts and Cou ;c'' ;izG. In response to Cain, Karr statcj sire
can p uvide copies of earlier Charter Review Commission minutes upon request.
�- MHUM 9=1 111110
McCullough explained the difference between the state rules and city rules are that there are
no limits on individual campaign contributions under state law and there are at the Iowa City
level.
Penningroth noted that Section 6.01 should be changed to say "...shall prescribe limitations
on the amount of campaign contributions made by a person..."
Willis stated that the city's 850 limitation expresses a community value and should be kept.
Cain stated the problem is because of the difference between state and local requirements.
McCullough stated the state's rules and recording forts are extensive. CRC discussed
enforcement. McCullough stated campaign financial disclosure forms get filed at the county
level but do not get reviewed or audited here. Forms are reviewed at the state level. CRC
discussed Sections 6.02 Disclosures of Contributions and Exoenditures. and Section 6.04
Violations. Cain noted that Council has established a limitation but has not established
penalties for violations. Karr stated she will ask City Attorney Woito to review Section 6.04.
McCullough requested that the City Attorney contact Kay Williams at the Campaign Finance
Disclosure Commission regarding state law preempting any local campaign finance limitations,
Rhodes asked the City Attorney to check with the State Attorney General's office on the
inconsistency between local ordinance and state law. Penningroth noted that Section 6.02
states, "The council, by ordinance, mavprescribe procedures requiring immediately before and
after each..." and in Section 6.04 states, "The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe (1)
penalties..." Moved by Rhodes, seconded by Willis, to not change Article VI, and requested
the City Attorney comment on Section 6.04. Motion carried, 711, McCullough voting no.
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p,m.
(Revised Charter Review issue list attached for reference purposes.)
CWkk=1 1-16.m
Charter Review Commission
November 16, 1994
Page 5
Revised issue list per 11/16 meeting
Chartei Review Commission
Pending
Resolved
Elections
Council /Mgr. Form
Nominating and election of districts
City Manager Duties
Primary and General Voting
2.10 Vacancies
Districts
Term of Office
Number
(4 yAars per and
Representation
no limit on #)
Neighborhood
Recall
Council Size (Number)
initiative & Referendum
Campaign Financial Disclosure
Mayor Selection
Penalities (6.04)
Council Compensation
6.01 Person
Campaign Finance Disclosure
(Follow -up enforcement;
Discrepancy with State;
and $50 limitation)
Recommendations
Non - discrimination
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1994 - 5:40 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
John McDonald presiding. Charter Review Commission: McDonald, Egli, Geasiand,
McCullough, Penningroth, Rhodes, Ringgenberg, Willis, Cain (5:45 p.m.). City staff present:
Karr, Woito, Smith. Tape recorded on Tapes CAC 94.11, All.
COM IMON ACTION:
Moved by Egli, seconded by Penningroth, to approve the November 30, 1994 CRC minutes
(as amended). Motion to accept minutes carried, 810. Cam absent.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to retain Section 302, primary Election.
Motion carried, 6/4, Egli, McCullough, Ringgenberg and Parxnkgroth voting no.
Moved by Willis, seconded by McCullough, to retain the Council system of seven Council
members with four stdarge and three residential district seats. Motion carried, 8/3, Cain,
Geasland and Egli voting no.
Moved by Cain, seconded by Rhodes, to recommend to Council that the next Charter Review
Commission be reconvened one year after the next census. Motion carried, 910.
CALL TO ORDER /APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to ardor at 5 :40 p.m. Mom by Egli, seconded by
Penringroth, to approve the November 30. 1994. CRC mkutes. McCullough requested that
page 2. Elections, second paragraph. line 15. the word gglIgUilm be changed to number.
Motion to accept minutes as amended carried. aiM. Cain absent.
McCullough stated the primary should be eliminated because it creates confusion and It Is
costly to the City, Ringgenterg said alternatives shouts be discussed. McCullough said all
® candidates could run In s general election and whoever gets the most inumber of) votes gets
the seat. Cain explained the original Charter Corrrmission was accustomed to the primary
system, and, therefore, more accepting of that system as a way of narrowing down the
® number of candidates. McCullough said there are problems with the primary system in filling
a Council vacancy. McDonald stated there were many primaries in the early '703.
McCullough stated there is confusion with district primaries. and asked what is gained by
having a primary. Cain said somebody could be elected from a district who does not
represent the district's Interests if all candidates were voted on at large. McCullough stated
that there are no guarantees in the current system that someone who is against the interests
of the district wouldn't get elected. Charter Review Commission discussed advantages and
is disadvantages of district primaries. Cain stated the goal of the district system was
geographical representation and that a person had to have an overall city-wide interest; if a
lot of people ran for a Council seat, the primary system allowed the two top vote getters to
° continue to the general election; and in order to ensure that a candidate had a truly city-wide
0 . .. . ..
Charter Review Commission
December 8, 1994
Page 2
perspective, you couldn't guarantee that a district repr'sentative would be elected just from
that district.
McDonald explained that a now candidate would not want a primary and an incumbent would
like a primary. McDonald stated district primaries cost the City approximately 920,000. Cain
noted a previous Council candidate liked the primary system because it gave the opportunity
to have recognition, test the waters and stir not spend a lot of money. Willis asked how at-
large candidates would be handled if there were no primary format. Charter Review
Commission and City Clerk Karr discussed assigning designated seats for at -large seats the
"road race system" for all candidates running against each other. Cain stated that she likes
the current system because it allowed candidates to work for the best platforms and best
vision for the City and if designated seats were set up, people would be fighting it out against
each other. Cain said the geographical representation and run- designated et -large seats was
a compromise.
In response to McDonald, Rhodes stated the current primary system seems straight forward.
Geasland stated she likes the present system but wants to look at the number of people in
each district. Cain said the original Charts Cornmissior addressed the number of district
versus at -large seats and not to much the specific population of each district. Geasland said
if a goal is geographical rwesantaWn, this bigger the district population becomes,
representation suffers. Penningroth said har feelings about the primary and ballot confusion
were affected by the circumstances of the recent special elections and vacant seats.
Penningroth noted that If you don't vote In the primary. you kue out on the candidate
selection process. McDonald stated the current pOnwy system works. in response to Cain,
Rhodes said no one addressed the primary concept at the pubac hawing. Egli stated voters
may want to eliminate primaries because of the cost of holding a printery.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Rhodes, to retain Charter Section 302. Primary Election.
Motion carried, 614, Egli, McCullough, RrrggenWrg end Pernugroth voting no.
City Attomoy Woito left at 6:22 p.m.
DISTRICTS — NUMBER. ..REPRESENTATION, NEIGHBORHOOD:
Geasland noted she originally proposed kr=easing district seats to five. Cain sold the original
Charter Commission discussed three district seats versus four at -large seats and four district
seats versus three at -large seats. Geasland said the original goal was geographical
representation and if the present Charter Review Commission wants to maintain geographical
representation, the number of districts needs to be adjusted. Geasland and Egli said the
Charter Review Commission should address Council size. Cain said the original Charter
Commission discussed a nine - member Council and decided against nine because their nine -
member Charter Commission had such lengthy discussions. Charter Review Commission
® reviewed a district boundary map of Iowa City. Cain suggested establishing a Charter Review
Commission one year after the next census. Willis said charter Section 802 would not need
to be amended because Council just needs to establish a Charter Review Commission at least
once every ten years. Cain noted that the original Charter Commission had maps drawn up
Charter Review Commission
December 9, 1994
Page 3
with the proposed districts for consideration and to see what equal population districts would
look like.
Penningroth said Charter Review Commission needs to address how they feel about the
number of districts versus at -large seats on Council. Charter Review Commission discussed
the Council size and the number of district seats versus at -large seats. Rhodes said that tying
the number of district seats to population will create future problems.
Moved by Willis, seconded by McCullough, to retain the Council system of seven Council
members with four at -large and three residential district seats. Ringgenberg said the people
of Iowa City want a Council that represents the entire community. McDonald said the district
Council members he served with were sensitive to the needs of the district and the entire
community. Egli and McCullough said poop a like having district representation, Cain said she
would support a four district seat -three st4arge seat system. Motion carried, 6/3, Cain,
Geasland and Egli voting no.
McDonald stated Charter Review Commmssion should prepare final recommendations for
Council. Karr summarized that recommendations wig kwJWe norm - discrimination language,
changing individual to person, and penalty section statement. Willis said Charter Review
Commission recommendations should mnc la a recommendation to reconvene a Charter
Review Commission one year after the next census.
Moved by Cain, seconded by Rhodes, to recommend to Council that the text Charter Review
Commission be reconvened one year after the next tarsus. Motion carried, 9 /0.
Penningroth asked if Council compensation should be discussed. Karr stated the current
Policy is to look at Council compensation every two years and state law says Council cannot
compensate itself. McDonald stated Council compensation comparabies exist with other
cities. Karr stated that It is difficult to comp ws with other cities because compensation
factors vary. Charter Review Commission discussed establishing a Council Compensation
Committee. Penningroth said Council compensation should be reviewed periodically and she
raised the issue so that Council doesn't have to feel poriticsRy pressured.
Karr asked Charter Review Commission if another public hearing should be scheduled. Charter
Review Commission members said another hearing was riot necessary because the public will
have oppominity to comment on the Charter Review Commission recommendations at future
Charter Review Commission meetings and Council meetings. Karr stated staff will draft the
recommendations as proposed. Charter Review Commissions agreed to schedule a Charter
Review Commission meeting January 4, 1995, to review the recommendations. McDonald
said all Charter Review Commission members should attend the Council meeting when Council
discusses the Charter Review Commission recommendations.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
a.n�iza,.
r-A
'19
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 4,1996,- 5:40 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
John McDonald presiding. Charter Review Commission: McDonald, Egli, Geasland,
Penningroth, Rhodes, Ringgenberg, Willis, Cain, Absent: McCullough. City staff present:
Karr, Smith. Tape recorded on Tapes CRC 95.1, All,
Moved by Rhodes, seconded by Willis, to approve the December 8, 1994, Charter Review
Commission minutes. Motion carried 8/0, McCullough absent.
Moved by Rhodes, seconded by Willis, to approve staff input recommendation #1. Page 4,
Section 2.06, Mayor. Subsection S. third line replace "spokesman" with "spokesperson ".
Motion carried 810, McCullough absent.
Moved by Rhodes, seconded by Ringgenberg, to approve staff input recommendation #2.
Page 4, Section 2.08, Appointments. Subsection C., "The Council shall appoint the City
Attorney." Motion carried 8/0, McCullough absent.
Moved by Willis, seconded by Cain, to not approve staff input recommendation #3. Page 8,
Section 2.12, Prohibitions. Subsection B. third line, sentence should read "However, the
Council or its members may express...." Motion carried 6 /0, McCullough absent.
Moved by Penningroth, seconded by Cain, to approve staff Input recommendations #4. Page
8, Section 3.01, Nomination. Subsection A., last line in paragraph should read "...not less
than ten (10) persons." Motion carried 8/0, McCullough absent.
Moved by Ringgenberg, seconded by Rhodes, to approve staff input recommendations #5.
Page 17, Section 7.04, Procedure after filing. Subsection D. Validity of signatures. Third line
from bottom should read "...current voting roles..." Motion carried 8/0, McCullough absent.
CALL TO ORDEWAPPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairperson McDonald called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Moved by Rhodes, seconded
by Willis, to approve the December 8, 1994, CRC minutes. Motion carried, 8/0, McCullough
absent.
REVIEW FINAL RECOMMENDATION MEMO:
Charter Review Commission members reviewed the December 28, 1994, memo regarding
CRC recommendations. CRC members asked that a preface be included explaining the review
process, public hearing, attendance by Council and candidates, rationale, etc.
Penningroth inquired about the staff snout 17114/94) recommendations. Charter Review
Commission reviewed the staff input recommendations as follows:
ON
i
Charter Review Commission
January 4, 1995
Page 2
Page 4, Section 2.06, Mayor, Subsection B., third line replace "spokesman" with
"spokesperson ".
Moved by Rhodes, seconded by Willis, to approve recommended change. Motion
carried 8/0, McCullough absent.
2. Page 4, Section 2.08, Appointments. Subsection C. should read "The Council shall
appoint the City Attorney."
Moved by Rhodes, seconded by Ringgenberg, to approve recommended change.
Motion carried 8/0, McCullough absent.
3. Page 6, Subsection 2.12, Prohibitions, Subsection B, third line, sentence should read
"However, the Councilor its members may express..."
Moved by Willis, seconded by Cain, to not approve this staff input recommendation.
Willis explained he feels strongly the Council should act as a Council rather than a
collection of individuals and it is a redundancy to add or its members. Penningroth said
the second sentence is inconsistent with the first sentence. Cain stated the Council
should act as a whole. Motion carried, 8/0, McCullough absent.
TZ
Page 8, Section 3.01, Nomination. Subsection A., last line in paragraph should read
"...not less than ten (10) persons."
Moved by Penningroth, seconded by Cain, to approve recommended change. Motion
carried 8/0, McCullough absent.
5. Page 17, Section 7.04, Procedure after filing. Subsection D. Validity of signatures,
Third line from bottom should read "...current voting roles..." Moved by Ringgenberg,
seconded by Rhodes, to approve recommended change. Motion carried 8/0,
McCullough absent.
Ringgenberg sold a brief explanation should be added to each recommendation. Willis
suggested that references to dates of meeting minutes be added to each recommendation.
PRESENTATION SCHEDULE:
City Clerk Karr stated she met with Mayor Horowitz and it was suggested that the Charter
Review Commission make a special presentation to present their recommendations at the
beginning of a formal Council meeting and at that same meeting set a public hebring on the
recommendations. Charter Review Commission agreed to schedule the special presentation
to present their recommendations to City Council on January 31, 1995, and set public hearing
on the recommendations February 14, 1995.
33�
I
I
Charter Review Commission
January 4, 1995
Page 3
Karr stated she will send a draft copy, including changes as discussed, of the memo regarding
CRC recommendations to CRC members for review. Members will be asked to call with
changes.
McDonald asked Commission members what should happen if the City Council requests the
Charter Review Commission to go back and review a specific area of the charter already
reviewed. In response to McDonald, Cain stated that it would be Charter Review
Commission's prerogative to ask Council to be as specific as possible if they request the
Commission re-look at the charter. McDonald stated the Charter Review Commission could
ask for a Council majority to request the Charter Review Commission reconvene.
City Clerk Karr stated she will contact Charter Review Commission members regarding
meeting schedule, final draft of recommendations, and Council meeting attendance.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
0
tQ-
Late Handouts — Handed out at 4/8/14 meeting
I jl
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 — NOON
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: John Balmer, Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki
Lensing, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; and Kevin Werner
Staff Present: City Atty. Eleanor Dilkes, City Clerk Marian Karr
INTRODUCTIONS
Chair Sueppel called the meeting to order at 12:02 PM. He asked that members introduce
themselves, and say something to the others in light of being on this newly formed
commission.
John Balmer — former Council member and Mayor, Chair of 1984 Charter Review
Commission.
Vicki Lensing — served on other City Review Committees in past; State Representative.
Andy Chappell — works for County Attorney's office; civil and municipal work.
Kevin Werner — works for Iowa State Bank; life -long Iowa City resident; U of I grad.
Naomi Novick— former Council member and Mayor; involved in last review.
Lynn Rowat — works for West Bank; U of I grad; worked in banking for over 30 years in
Iowa City; involved in community service groups; served on task force in 1994.
Penny Davidsen — former Council member and Mayor Pro tem; served on Charter
Committee that originally devised the current review system.
Karen Kubby — citizen activist and former Council member.
Bill Sueppel — of Counsel with Meardon, Sueppel & Downer; former City Attorney;
General Counsel to the Iowa League of Cities.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
Marian Karr reported on survey results, 7:30 AM meeting time is the favored time, and
Thursdays and Fridays were favored days. Chair Sueppel stated that tentatively the
Commission would plan to meet at 7:30 AM, with meetings running hopefully around 1
hour. Discussion continued on which day or days of the week would work best for
everyone. It was decided that meetings would take place on Thursdays. Chair Sueppel
then stated that the 3d Thursday of each month would be the tentative meeting time, with
June 17 °i being slated as the next meeting. Sueppel stated that he would like to have the
Charter Review Commission
May 19, 2004
Page 2
Commission meet once every two weeks, if possible, so they can keep moving along on
the process. Davidsen stated that she would like to see everything wrapped up by
October, and Balmer agreed, stating that multiple meetings would be fine with him.
Next the members discussed the July meeting. July 15`' is the 3`d Thursday, but there are
several members out. It was decided to move the meeting in July to the 29`'. Several
members voiced their desire to schedule as many meetings as possible, now, so they can
plan ahead as needed. August 26 °i was scheduled, as well as August I Ph. Karr stated she
would have this schedule posted on the Charter Review Commission agenda so members
will know when all meetings are scheduled. Sueppel then asked that the fall schedule be
placed on the next meeting's agenda, and discussion turned to going ahead now and
setting up the following dates for meetings: September 8 and 29; October 13 and 27. All
meetings will be at 7:30 AM, and will be in either the Lobby Conference Room, or
Harvat Hall. Sueppel reiterated that this is a tentative schedule, and as things progress
they can always reschedule.
SELECT CHAIR PRO TEM
Sueppel stated that when the Council selected the 9 members on the Charter Review
Commission, they named him as Chair. He asked if this was an issue with anyone on the
Commission. Hearing none, he stated that a Chair Pro tern needed to be selected. Kubby
stated she would like to nominate Lensing. Lensing declined at first due to her schedule,
but then relented. No other nominations were made.
MOTION: Kubby moved to elect Lensing at Chair Pro tem. Rowat seconded the
motion. All in favor; motion passed.
MATERIALS AVAILABLE
Chair Sueppel stated that he would next like to turn the Commission's attention to
available materials for the Commission to review while they go through this process.
Minutes of all past commissions, including amendments, was the first item discussed.
Karr stated that the Charter the members currently have does include these amendments.
She said she could get copies of the ordinances that amended the Charter, to give further
explanation. Sueppel stated he would also like a copy of the original Charter. Karr will
get packets of the requested into to all of the members as soon as possible. It was also
mentioned that a contact sheet with all of the members phone numbers, emails, etc.,
would also be helpful. Dilkes stated that emails are considered public record, and
members need to be aware of the open meeting issues. Members were told to contact the
City Clerk's office with any requests for information.
Charter Review Commission
May 19, 2004
Page 3
Sueppel stated that he has written to the League, asking for a list of charter cities in Iowa.
Discussion turned to the "Clinton case ", and Sueppel asked Dilkes to get copies of the
Clinton case for members to review. He stated that the case deals with the town of
Clinton's charter and an ensuing lawsuit. Discussion turned to the right of home rule,
and various rulings that have taken place in Iowa. Dilkes also shared some legal
background of these various cases. Members discussed the various pieces of information
they would like to have available to them. Discussion turned to initiative and referendum
petitions, and the significance of their language. Sueppel wrapped up this part of the
discussion by asking members to read through the info they receive, and to ask for
information they feel would be helpful. He stated they could contact Marian Karr or
Eleanor Dilkes with any questions.
(TAPE ENDS)
STRUCTURE
Sueppel asked the members how they would like to proceed with the review of the
Charter, what they would like to use as the "starting" point. Davidsen asked if going
article by article by article was too simplistic. Chappell stated it isn't too simplistic for
the part of review they are doing. However, when the public input is built into it, he feels
they should be less constrained, and allow more broad discussion or presentation of
issues from the public. Sueppel stated that they will need to schedule public hearings as
they go along, and also reiterated that all of their meetings are open to the public. He said
he would also like input from the City staff, the City Manager, and see how they think the
Charter is working. Chappell asked if a work session with the City Council would be
beneficial, and Sueppel replied that asking for their input would definitely be beneficial,
but that he did not feel a meeting was necessary. Karr gave a brief history of past
commissions, and how each has chosen to address this review. Some have chosen to do a
preliminary review of the entire Charter, make some preliminary observations and
recommendations, and then had the public respond to "something ". Others have
preferred to get public input first thing, and then they reviewed the charter, with a final
public hearing at the conclusion of the review. She suggested the Commission decide
how they want to structure this input. Kubby said she likes the idea of going through the
entire Charter first, with everyone listing their concerns. Then they could go through a
process of picking the most important issues. Novick stated that public input should be
from evening meetings, and not the early morning. She feels that they need to plan these
well for public attendance.
Lensing asked Karr if she has a file of notes or correspondence from the public on these
types of issues. Karr responded that she does not have a specific file, but has the
knowledge of what has taken place with initiatives and referendums in the past. Rowat
feels that when it comes to public input, they may need to put something in the
newspaper or have the City Council announce for them that they want input. Sueppel
followed up with saying that he would like to set as a goal for their June 17al meeting,
that they all be prepared to discuss any issues they may have with any section of the
Charter. He feels they should start at the beginning of the Charter, and go piece by piece,
Charter Review Commission
May 19, 2004
Page 4
with each member giving their concerns. This will help them create a list of issues to be
further discussed.
Discussion turned to putting something out to the public now, letting them know of the
Commission, and soliciting any issues the public may have. City staff will be contacted
by the City Clerk and City Attorney. Karr encouraged all public comments be made in
writing. She asked for clarification on the agenda item of Public Comment, and whether
they want everything to be in writing at this time, or if verbal comments would be
accepted at this point in time. Sueppel stated that lie feels both written and spoken
comments should be encouraged. Davidsen asked if the minutes would be detailed
enough to cover these comments, and Karr responded they would.
Chappell asked if they would be setting up subcommittees. Sueppel said that lie had
discussed this issue recently, and lie would be open to this if they see a real need for it.
Sueppel said as they work through each part of the Charter, they can tackle whatever
questions arise, and the more familiar they become with it, the more issues could be
raised.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:10 PM.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL
THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2004 — 7:30 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Nate Green, Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki Lensing,
Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, Kevin Werner, and William Sueppel.
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM. He introduced new member, Nate
Green, appointed to fill the term of John Balmer who resigned due to a conflict of interest. He
then asked the members if there were any comments pertaining to the beginning of the Charter,
before they begin a section -by- section review. Kubby stated that she has been thinking about the
internal process to this review, and wondered if a generalized discussion about the overall values
of this process could take place now. Discussion turned to members being asked to "speak their
mind" about the form of government in place in Iowa City, and decide if they want an upfront
generalized discussion, or if they will discuss specific things as they go through the Charter.
Sueppel stated that he would prefer members to speak up now if they have any strong feelings
about the direction the City is going, so as they do their review, they will already know of
potential problem areas.
Kubby stated that in reading through past minutes of Charter Review meetings, she had several
ideas on the direction they may need to go. One of her main concerns was the number of
representatives our the City Council, and how this representation is working. She then said she
would like to discuss the City Manager role, and how that role works with the City Council.
Sueppel followed up with comments regarding the unique form of government in Iowa City, and
mentioned the initial Charter Review Commission members and process. Davidsen stated that
the initial Charter review was during a time of great upheaval in Iowa City. She discussed the
issues facing the City Council at that time, and gave some background on the initial Charter, She
said the initial goal was to keep the City Manager more in tune with what was happening, and to
keep Iowa City Council representative of the City as a whole.
APPROVE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2004
Chairperson Sueppel asked if anyone had any comments on the minutes. Hearing none, he asked
for a motion to accept the minutes as written.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the minutes of the May 19, 2004, meeting; Kubby
seconded. Minutes were accepted.
REVIEW CHARTER
Chairperson Sueppel started the review process with the "Preamble ". There were no comments
on this section, and he stated that they would set up a process where they would review a section
and if everyone agrees with it as written, they will "TA" (temporarily approve) the section.
"Definitions" was the next section reviewed. Sueppel stated he had a few questions in this area.
"Eligible Elector" — Ire asked City Clerk Karr if they have any way of knowing who an "eligible
elector" is. Karr responded that they go by the address given. Questions were asked about this
process, and Karr explained the City's position on this. The discussion turned to qualified
Charter Review Commission
June 17, 2004
Page 2
electors, and Karr also responded to these questions. Chappell stated that he had a definition
question. He asked about the "Measure ", and stated that he did not find that wording in the
Chatter. Instead they were referred to as "amendment resolution, motion, or ordinance ". He
questioned why "measure" is defined. City Atty. Dilkes stated that they should set that issue
aside for now, as the term "ordinance" is used in Title VIII but "measure" might make more
sense. Sueppel asked why they have "person" identified in this section, and Karr explained the
reasoning behind this wording. Discussion then turned to "Ordinance ", and Dilkes explained that
the original commission used the term "ordinance" but defined it more broadly than State Code.
"Article I - Powers of the City" — Sueppel asked if anyone had any comments on this
suggestion. Hearing none, he stated they would "TA" this section.
"Article II — City Council" — Sueppel asked if anyone had any questions. Kubby stated she has
some comments about the 4/3 split in the Council, and depending on how that discussion goes,
further along in the process, she may have questions regarding this area. Rowat commented
about the various regions in the City, and discussed the at -large positions on the Council.
Davidsen gave background history on how the City got to this point, and what the thinking was in
the 1970's when things were changing so drastically. Karr gave some history on primaries,
districts, general elections, and how representation was decided. Kubby stated that she is
interested in discussing the system, and perhaps even changing this area in order to better serve
the growing community. Chappell asked if she was referring to exploring a system whereby each
citizen would have perhaps five representatives on the Council — one from their specific District,
and four at- large. He questioned if the current Districts are too large, or if they need to review
this area also. Discussion continued on the representation of each area of the City, and it was
stated that every ten years, after a Census, the federal government gives the City parameters by
which to decide these districts. Sueppel asked Karr to get a copy of the City's district map for
each of the members of the Charter Review so they can further discuss this area.
"Section 2.03 — Eligibility". Sueppel asked what the term "domiciliary" referred to. Karr stated
that the issue has arisen twice in twenty-five years, and had to do with a person running for office
who after election wished to relocate outside of the district. For an at -large candidate, this is not
an issue. However, if a person is representing a District seat, this is a problem. Novick asked if
residence could be used in place of domiciliary. Dilkes stated there are some
subtle differences, legally. Dilkes stated that in 2.03, she sees no problem with using "eligible
elector.... ". Sueppel asked that they table this issue for now until the members have had a chance
to review all the Charter.
Sueppel asked if there were any questions on "Section 2.04 - Terms" . He noted that if the form
of government would be changed, they would have to also change the accompanying terms and
definitions. Chappell asked Karr about Section 2.02, and if this was done every ten years. She
stated they are required to update Districts after every census, but they can also do these more
often. Kubby asked about staggered terms, and what wording can be removed. It was reiterated
that if they make changes such as this, they would have to update all terms associated.
"Section 2.06 - Mayor ". Chappell turned the discussion towards the issue of how the Mayor is
elected, and what the thinking was behind this process. Discussion turned to how other cities
handle this aspect of their government. Discussion focused on the question of direct election or
Council election of Mayor with no changes in Mayor's duties. Novick then discussed the "veto"
Charter Review Commission
June 17, 2004
Page 3
power of a mayor, and asked about a directly - elected mayor versus one chosen by the council.
The issue of a full -time mayor was also discussed. Davidsen brought tip the issue of campaigning
and how this would change in a system where the citizens elect the mayor specifically. Sueppel
asked that the members give some thought to these discussions, and they can address them fully
as they move along. Discussion turned to the Mayor Pro tern, and Karr explained this process.
Questions were asked about the power of this position.
"Section 2.07 - General powers and duties ". Sueppel stated that he would like to finish Section
It if possible, before they adjourn. He raised a question of the powers of the City, and how the
City Manager and Council's powers play out as well.
"Section 2.08 - Appointments" was discussed. Kubby asked a question regarding "E ", and what
the language meant.
"Section 2.09 — Rules; records ". State Law and there were no questions.
"Section 2.10 — Vacancies ". State Law and no questions.
"Section 2.11— Council action ". Sueppel asked about the term "a majority of the council
members ". He stated that this has been changed in State Law to "all the members of the council ",
and he gave some background on the State Law. There was also discussion about 2.11(B) which
gives the Council the authority to submit a measure to a binding vote of the electorate. The
Council has never used the authority and concern was expressed by Dilkes about whether such
authority would be consistent with state law. Dilkes will review this area and report back to the
Commission. Sueppel stated that this section would be on "hold ".
"Section 2.12 — Prohibitions ". Sueppel asked why the language "or elected County official" was
added to the Charter. Chappell stated that there is some discussion of this in the initial minutes of
the Charter Review Commission. Green stated that it would be similar to the House and Senate,
and the process there. Discussion turned to the various members' impressions of this section, and
how they interpret it. Sueppel then turned the discussion to `B ", and brought up his concerns
about this wording. He questioned the power, or lack of, by the Council. Various members made
comments about this section, and it was decided that they would review this more in depth as they
progress through the Charter.
Karr noted that there is a distinction between Sections "B" and "C" under Section 2,12, and she
gave some background information. Dilkes also gave further explanation of the City's system,
the contract for the City Manager, and how State Codes play a part in the make -up of the City
government. Karr stated that the City Manager would gladly attend a meeting if the members so
desire.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sueppel asked if there was any public comment. No one was present to speak.
FUTURE MEETINGS
Sueppel stated that July 29" will be the next meeting, and they will continue the process as they
have done today. Karr will have District maps ready for the members, and it was suggested that
any correspondence or information that would be helpful be given to Karr for copying and
Charter Review Commission
June 17, 2004
Page 4
distributing to all members. Karr stated that she would get packets to the members at Least a
week before each meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved for adjournment at 8:50 AM; seconded by Green. Motion
carried.
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2004 — 7:30 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Nate Green, Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki
Lensing, Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; and Kevin Werner
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2004
Chairperson Sueppel asked if anyone had any comments on the minutes. Davidsen asked
for a clarification, under "Call to Order ", the second paragraph, last sentence: "She said
the initial goal was to keep the City Manager more in time with what was happening, and
to keep Iowa City represented by the City as a whole." Davidsen suggested: "...and to
keep the Iowa City Council representative of the City as a whole." Discussion ensued
about the wording, with Davidsen submitting the change in wording. Novick asked that
the minutes contain a little bit more detail, mainly for future reference, so that future
Commissions will see a clearer picture of what took place in the review.
MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the minutes of the June 17, 2004, meeting as
amended; Rowat seconded. Minutes were accepted with amendments.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairperson Sueppel stated that he would like to have the public input moved up before
the "Review" starts, so they can keep their discussions going until the meeting ends. He
asked if members had reviewed the letter from Caroline Dieterle, which suggests that the
Commission review the method of appointment of the Chief of Police. She would like
this to be done by the Council. She is asking the Commission to keep this in mind when
they review the appropriate section of the Charter.
REVIEW CHARTER
Article III, Nomination, Primary Election and Regular Election. Sueppel asked if
anyone had any comments on Section 3.01. Nomination. Kubby asked if there was a
legal reason why sections A and B, under Nomination, are the same wording, except for
the at -large and districts. Karr gave an explanation of how a district seat is every four
years, an at -large seat is two years, and therefore this section was most likely separated in
order to clarify that difference. Discussion was started on voting practices, and how
people tend to vote, or not vote, in the various districts. Chappell said lie doesn't see a
problem with this section. Kubby asked if Karr could provide the Commission with
some numbers concerning the signatures on petitions. Sueppel asked if there was a big
difference between the number of people who cast a vote for a specific district, versus
voting for an at -large seat. Karr said that yes, this is very common, with many times
being a hundred signatures difference. Sueppel asked about a "bullet vote ", and how
does the City count these votes. Karr stated it would be classified as at- large, and she
explained how a "bullet vote" plays into the four-year and two -year seats. Kubby noted
that it would be interesting to survey people about their personal voting history, and see
why people vote in the at- large, but not the district. Discussion turned to the system of
voting and the lack of information for voters. Sueppel asked if there has ever been a time
Charter Review Commission
July 29, 2004
Page 2
when only one person was on the ballot, instead of two. Karr responded that she could
not think of a time when this has happened, but that often there is no primary election.
Rowat asked about the "10" number and how this creates the need for a primary. He
asked if perhaps this number was too low, and by raising it, it would cut costs for primary
elections when they may not be necessary. Novick stated that this could be a State law,
and discussion continued on this. Sueppel asked Dilkes to get a clarification on this
issue, and whether it is mandated by State law. Kubby stated that on Section A, wording
would read: "...but not less than the ten person..." Green said lie is interested in the
background of the "10 person" rule also.
Section 3.02 Primary Election - Chappell asked about Section B, the last part that
states: "...unless the Council, by ordinance, chooses to have a run -off election." He
asked what the rationale was behind this, and wondered if it made sense to let the current
Council, especially right before an election, pass an ordinance creating a run -off. He
stated that conceptually this didn't make sense. Sueppel stated that this was a good point
to make, and he then turned the discussion to the City's concept of districts. Kubby
stated that it's what they do with this concept, as to whether or not it will create a
problem. Chappell noted that if changes were made to the district concept, as some have
previously shown an interest in doing, that this would then create a problem. Kubby
stated that other cities are using other voting methods, whereby they can avoid the
expense of a primary, and she is doing some review of these. Sueppel asked if these
others cities are in Iowa or not, and stated that she should check with Dilkes on this as
much of what is done in Iowa City's voting process is mandated by the State of Iowa.
Novick then asked about the latest district map, and wonders if they shouldn't consider
having four districts, instead of three. She stated that the comparison between the
previous map, and this most recent one, shows a big difference, and she feels the districts
are no longer as contiguous as they were. Discussion continued around this issue, with
the word "compact" being used in place of "contiguous ". Kubby stated that in reviewing
some other city charters, she noted the difference in how they deal with the at -large seats.
Rowat asked Novick for clarification on her suggestion, and if she is suggesting they go
from a three - district to a four, or expanding to a nine. She was referring to a four and
three, with seven people still on the Council, but with the nomination process and district
lines changing.
Section 3.03 Regular City Election — Sueppel started off the discussion by asking if in
Iowa City there can be a "write -in" vote. Karr responded that the ballots have space for
write -ins, and they've had some in the past. Green asked if language should be added to
the Charter to reflect this. Sueppel gave the following scenario: District A has a primary,
and A and B are elected to be on the general ballot. The rest of the City could reject both
candidates from District A, and have a write -in, daring this general election. Karr noted
that this is correct. Kubby noted that other communities, outside of Iowa, have a line
stating "None of the Above ". She may look into this further, to see what outcomes have
shown. Sueppel asked if there was enough interest from the Commission members to
have Kubby look into these issues further, and several members stated their interest.
Article IV — City Manager, Section 4.01 Appointment; Qualifications — the
discussion turned to the next Article. There were no comments or suggestions on 4.0t.
Charter Review Commission
July 29, 2004
Page 3
Section 4.02 Accountability; Removal, Chappell asked about the phrase "...holds office
at its pleasure." He asked if the City Manager has a contract, which gives him some
rights, but that he is an "at will" employee. Dilkes gave a brief explanation of the City
Manager's contract, and subsequent benefits. Kubby asked if there was anything in this
contract that required a super - majority vote of the Council. Sueppel stated that tine
approval of the contract is most likely by resolution. Sueppel asked what the words
"...or until a City Manager is appointed." Discussion ensued on this, under Section B,
with various members giving their view. Novick suggested they remove the word
"or read "at the pleasure of the City Council until a City Manager is appointed."
Green stated that the language as it is now gives the Council the option to either appoint a
City Manager right away, or to have the option to use an interim manager. Sueppel stated
that he doesn't think the City has that option, that they must appoint someone in this
position. Dilkes explained the policies the City follows, and how the City Manager
submits a memo before an absence, and states who will be in charge during his absence.
Karr stated that the City Manager does have a flow chart showing the internal structure of
who would make decisions in his absence. The discussion then turned to how a long-
term situation would be handled. Novick suggested that the wording be changed from
"shall" to "may ", giving the City Council the right to override the City Manager's choice.
Sueppel noted that to date there have been no problems in this area; and lie said that if
someone has an actual case to share, it would be helpful.
Section 4.04 Duties of City Manager. Chappell asked about A.(2) in this section, and
whether they should add, after "...subject to State law ", the phrase, "...and policies
adopted by Council." He further asked if the Council has adopted things like the City
Handbook, etc. Dilkes stated that the Council adopts the pay plans every year,
reclassification of employees, and items of that nature. Chappell stated that he brings up
this addition in order to give a clearer picture. Sueppel stated that he believes this goes
along with the next subsections, (3) and (4). Kubby stated that (1) covers this, but
perhaps it should say `laws and policies" instead of just "laws." Sueppel gave some
background on the Association of City Managers, and the ethics they must follow.
Discussion turned to the history of having a City Manager, and the role of the City
Council in this system. Dilkes noted that she worries about the Commission changing
language in this area, as it can raise questions about whether Council can pass "policies"
about those matters reserved by Charter to the City Manager. The process of changing
policies was then discussed, with Karr giving some background information on the
process that takes place within the City. Sueppel gave background on some of the
language in the Charter, stating that it comes directly from the State code.
Dilkes agreed, and added that if Council action is required the City Manager only has the
authority granted him by the Council.
Sueppel then asked about the wording, "...including the determination and compensation
of all City employees." He asked about the adoption process, and Karr explained how
the resolution process, which covered pay plans, was handled. Karr then explained the
administrative ranges that are part of the pay plan.
Novick then asked about (3), and if there would be an advantage to adding "appoint or
employ well qualified persons to occupy positions... ". Sueppel stated it would be tip to
the group if they wanted to add this wording. Sueppel then asked if the City has an
Charter Review Commission
July 29, 2004
Page 4
inventory of its personal property. Karr stated that the City is reassessing and reassigning
duties in the Accounting Department to accommodate this. Karr stated that by law now
they are required to follow a "GASB" accounting method; and Chappell gave further
explanation of this specific method.
Green stated he would like to suggest a language change to A.(5), where it states:
"Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the city, make... ".
Instead of "make ", he is suggesting they say "approve" or "authorize" instead. Sueppel
noted that all throughout the Charter, the same language is used. Discussion continued
on how the wording is done throughout this section, and if changing the wording would
make a difference. Sueppel stated he had no problem with taking out the word "make"
and putting in "supervise all" instead.
Sueppel asked that members bring any specific wording changes to the next meeting,
which will be August 11'x'. Dilkes informed the Commission that she will not be at the
next meeting, but she will send a representative from her office, and will provide answers
to the questions that the Commission posed today. Dilkes stated that she did not believe
a change in 2.11(A) was necessary. She said that she can give an opinion on (A), and
asked if the Commission wants an opinion on 2.11(B) also. Green stated Ire would like
more discussion on these issues.
Karr asked if there was a motion to accept correspondence.
MOTION: Kubby moved, and Davidsen seconded, to accept correspondence from
Caroline Dieterle. All in favor; motion carried.
Kubby then suggested that the meetings be scheduled until 9:00 AM as she feels the hour
isn't long enough. Members were in agreement.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kubby moved for adjournment at 8:53 AM; seconded by Davidsen. All
in favor; motion carried.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2004 — 7:30 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki Lensing,
Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; and Kevin Werner
Members Absent: Nate Green
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Sue Dudek
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 29.2004
Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. Davidsen stated that on page 3 of
the minutes, middle of the first paragraph, where it talks about the City Manager, and it
states the "City Manager does a memo... ". Members stated they felt this was okay. She
then mentioned that the spelling of her last name keeps changing. Novick asked that
minutes reflect a change in the first paragraph, from "...so that future Councils..." to "so
that future Commissions ".
MOTION: Lensing moved to accept the minutes as amended correcting the spelling
of "Davidsen "; changing the word "does" on page 3 to "submits "; and replacing
"Commissions" for "Council" in the first paragraph; seconded by Rowat. Motion
carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sueppel noted that the Commission had received correspondence from Jim and Dianne
Brenneman, regarding the City Manager position.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept correspondence; Lensing seconded. Motion
approved to accept correspondence from Jim and Dianne Brenneman.
REVIEW CHARTER
Chairperson Sueppel stated that per a recommendation from the City Attorney, she would
ask that the Commission not discuss Initiatives and Referendums until such time that
she is able to attend the meeting. Sueppel suggested they skip this section until the next
meeting, and the Commission agreed.
Section 4.04, Duties of City Manager (7) was discussed first. Sueppel asked if anyone
had any concerns about this section. City contracts were discussed, and Karr explained
that she attests (the Mayor's signature) and the City Council approves those contracts
over a minimum amount established by State Code.
Charter Review Commission
August 11, 2004
Page 2
Section 4.05, Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts — Sueppel questions this Section and asked
if the City Manger is the "keeper of the records ", or if the City Clerk is. Karr stated that
Iowa City has not passed a resolution regarding the matter. Sueppel stated they should
look at this further, and he questioned its place in the Charter.
Article V, Boards, Commissions and Committees was reviewed next. Sueppel asked if
the City had a set of adopted procedural rules for Commissions and Boards, and stated
that the Charter Review Commission should have these adopted rules. Karr stated that
the Charter Review Commission does not have standard operating procedures to follow.
She further explained that there is no "blanket rule" for all Commissions.
Section 5.01, Establishment — temporarily approved section.
Section 5.02, Appointment; Removal — Karr explained that many Boards and
Commissions have requirements such as attendance as part of their by -laws, and that a
member of a Board must be a resident of Iowa City. Chappell stated that lie would like to
add the words "and applications" to the second sentence in this section, after the word
"nominations ". Sueppel questioned the words "just cause ", and what do they mean in this
section. Dulek stated this referred to establishing procedures for removals. Sueppel
explained a case from Davenport where a member had to be removed, and how the
Supreme Court ruled on it. Discussion continued by several members on removals from
various boards and commissions, especially those elected to boards and commissions.
The term "just cause" was further discussed and Sueppel explained a recent Supreme
Court case that considered "proper cause ". Sueppel requested further input from Dilkes.
Kubby asked for clarification on "nominations" in this section, and suggested replacing
"nominations" with "encourage applications" instead, as these are not nominated
positions being discussed. The Commission agreed with this wording change.
Section 5.03, Rules — Discussion started with the use of the word "by -laws" and whether
"rules" is the same thing. Chappell asked if it would be beneficial to add "and open
records ", after, "...and rules pertaining to open meetings ". Sueppel asked questions
regarding this, and the Commission agreed to add the wording. Subsections B and C
were temporarily approved. Davidsen asked for further clarification on this section.
Article VI, Campaign Contributions, and Expenditures — Sueppel asked if all of this
is in compliance with Chapter 56, which is the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Rules,
which establishes the Iowa Ethics Board and the Campaign Disclosure Board. It was
decided to hold this question for Attorney Dilkes' review. Kubby asked about disclosure,
and whether candidates would have to disclose to both the state and the city. Discussion
continued on the City's rules of disclosure, versus the state law, which is basically what
is followed. (TAPE ENDS)
Discussion turned to Section 6.03, Definition and whether services should be defined as
"professional ", or "in kind ". Dulek gave further explanation regarding contributions and
donations. Discussion turned to the distinction between "professional time" and
Charter Review Commission
August 11, 2004
Page 3
"personal time ", and how this would play into contributions. Sueppel suggested that
Dilkes check into the campaign finance rules, and what is accepted as "professional
time ". Various examples of wording in campaign ads was also discussed. Sueppel stated
that they would hold on this matter until the City Attorney's office can review.
Article VIII, Charter Amendments and Review -- Section 8.01, Charter
Amendments — Sueppel noted that in (A), it states, "...and a proposed amendment
becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting." In (B) it states again
that ... "the amendment does not become effective until approved by a majority of those
voting'; and (C) also states the same thing. Sueppel further noted that the three
subsections should be consistent. Discussion turner( to when the majority vote is
determined, date of the election versus date of canvas, versus date of acceptance of the
abstract of election by the City Council. Kubby questioned (C), where it states "ten
percent ", and notes this is less than the requirement for initiatives or referendums
(ordinances). Novick asked if the goal is to have it be easier to change the Charter versus
changing an ordinance. The majority of the members stated it should be harder to change
the Charter. Discussion continued on the charter, how amendments take place, and how
the Charter reflects State law requirements for Charter petitions. It was decided to put
this section on hold until Dilkes can give the Commission further information. Chappell
questioned "special" city election versus city election, and discussion turned to the state
code regarding these terms.
Section 8.02, Chartef• Review Commission — Kubby asked for clarification on this
section, on whether or not the Commission's recommendations have to be put up for the
voters. Discussion continued on the language in this section, with Sueppel stating it
needed clarification. Kubby asked about options, and adding wording to the effect that
the "Commission recommends" when it comes to approving changes to the Charter.
Questions were raised about presenting changes, and how the process could be changed.
Sueppel stated that now that the Commission has gone through the Charter once, he
suggests they review previous amendments, and then proceed from there. He asked if the
Commission members could stay for a longer time period so they could get further into
discussions as they firm up their recommendations.
Kubby asked for further clarification of a "run off' election, and Sueppel explained Iowa
law in this area.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Chappell moved for adjournment at 9:10 AM; seconded by Davidsen.
All in favor; motion carried.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2004 — 7:30 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki Lensing,
Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, and Nate
Green
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004
Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. There were no additions,
corrections, or deletions.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the August 11, 2004, minutes as written.
Chappell seconded. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
REVIEW CHARTER
Chairperson Sueppel stated that they would start today's review process with Article
VII, Iritiative and Referendum. He first asked the Commission members if they
approve the idea of keeping Initiative and Referendum as part of the City's Charter. The
members all agreed that it should be kept part of the Charter. He then asked if anyone
had any comments thus far. Kubby stated that she has concerns about the "benchmarks"
being used. Rowat asked if other city charters do not have Initiative and Referendum in
them, or if there is some other process available that the Commission should perhaps
consider. Kubby said she has made up a chart with other cities charters, but she forgot to
bring it today. Discussion turned to the type of government that Iowa City has, and how
it differs from other cities. Discussion concluded that of the four Home Rule Charter
cities in Iowa only Iowa City and Clinton have initiative and referendum provisions.
Davidsen stated that she recently reviewed the original Charter information, and that this
section was considered a vital part of the Charter, even back then.
Discussion turned to Section 7.01, General Provisions (A) Authority, and the
difference between qualified and eligible voters. Sueppel asked about Initiatives, and
how the City handles these when first received. Dilkes stated that she waits until there
has been a filing before she gives her opinion on whether she thinks the issue is subject to
Initiative or Referendum. Karr gave background on how the process starts, and the time
she spends letting the petitioner know the process. She also gave some examples of
petitions and affidavits, and she noted that she has a timeline for the members to review,
so they can better understand the process.
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2004
Page 2
Sueppel then asked if Capital Projects should ever be subject to initiative and referendum.
Dilkes stated that the minutes of the original Charter Commission show that the model
Charter had an exclusion for Capital Projects. Discussion turned to why this was done.
Chappell noted that the May 8, 1973, minutes on page 2, third paragraph, explains the
thinking at that time. It was felt that Capital Improvements were a controversial issue,
and that the Council at that time would have to "prove to the public that their taxes were
well spent." He further read the minutes to the members, and various members added
their opinions. Dilkes gave an example of a previous issue, where a request to delete a
project from the capital improvements plan, a planning project for capital projects, came
about. Sueppel asked if Dilkes had any concerns about the present definition of Initiative,
and she stated she did not.
Kubby turned the discussion to whether qualified (registered) or eligible voters should be
required to sign the petitions. Karr gave history on the request for updated voter rolls,
and how without the optional birthdate on a petition, it can be hard to prove someone is
eligible. Rowat stated that he feels that if someone wants to participate in the
governmental process, there is nothing wrong with expecting them to be registered
voters. He further stated that if they have not registered, but want to enter into the
process of government, they can easily get a form to register. Green noted that many of
the University of Iowa population do not become registered voters here, as they want to
keep their registration in their home state. Sueppel stated that by requiring people to be
qualified voters, it increases the registration of voters. Novick stated that State law says
you can be on the ballot without being a registered voter. Chappell indicated he
originally was inclined to favor the requirement that those signing be registered
(qualified), but noted that State law often requires petition to be signed only by eligible
voters. Kubby stated that she feels if people can be part of the petition process, it helps to
stir their interest in elections, etc. She would like to see the public more involved.
The discussion next turned to the process by which the City Clerk knows who is a
registered voter, and how someone becomes a registered voter. Sueppel asked if anyone
wanted to vote on any of these issues at this time, and the members stated they would like
to review further. Sueppel asked if the language of Initiative is acceptable then to the
Commission. He then asked about Referendum, stating it's the same thing. Davidsen
asked if there's a difference with resolution, and Dilkes explained its inclusion. Kubby
asked if just a section of an ordinance can be changed, or if the entire ordinance has to be
changed. Rowat asked why there are definitions in this section, as well as at the
beginning of the Charter.
Discussion turned to the difference between administrative issues and legislative issues.
Dilkes gave an example of a Supreme Court case, and how a certain case played out on
this issue. Dilkes stated that the question of legislative versus administrative can be very
difficult to ascertain. Novick asked if it would be wise to reword this definition, and
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2004
Page 3
Dilkes stated that that would be a policy decision for the Commission to make. The
suggestion of "ordinance or resolution" was made, and discussion turned to how one
change in the Charter can affect the rest of the Charter. Novick restated her question, and
said that in (1) Initiative and (2) Referendum, they could say they would use this
initiative and referendum to allow the voters to delete or add an ordinance, or resolution.
Sueppel asked if that clarifies it better. Kubby asked about the CIP plan and if it was
adopted by resolution. Dilkes stated that by adding "resolution" she does not feel this
gives them any better clarification. Kubby stated that it does get rid of two different
definitions, and would make it clearer to the "average" citizen. Green asked for an
example of what the Commission would be recommending. (TAPE ENDS) Dilkes
brought up "measures" and suggested they use this wording, instead of "ordinance" as
that would make this section more consistent with the language used in State Code and
the definition section of the Charter. Sueppel agreed that this might be a good idea, and
he then discussed the differences between motions, ordinances, measures, etc. Kubby
asked if this change to use the word "measure" would be a "housekeeping" change, or
would it effect any other portions of the Charter. Dilkes suggested that they would need
to define what "measure" is, such as "within this article, measure means an action of a
legislative measure, however designated." This would then not change the definition at
all. Karr asked why they needed separate definitions in the Charter, when "measure" is
already in there. Dilkes responded that they need to get the "legislative nature" in there.
Sueppel asked the members if they would like to have Dilkes draft what she thinks would
be appropriate for this change, and then they could all discuss it at the next meeting.
Lensing asked if Dilkes could further clarify "plan' when she does her draft. Dilkes
stated that the issue she raised earlier regarding capital projects would be best addressed
under the "exclusions" section.
The discussion turned to B. Limitations. Sueppel asked if anyone had any questions on
this section. Novick questioned (k) Amendments affecting the City Zoning
Ordinance, except those affecting a tract of land two acres or more in size. She
wanted to know if this was State Code or not. Dilkes explained the State Code provisions
on zoning, and her feeling that this specific exclusion had big problems with it.
Discussion turned to possible problems with this, and Chappell stated that he was prying
to find where this specific wording came from. The discussion also touched on State
requirements versus City requirements. Lensing brought up emergency ordinances, and
asked why it was not in the exclusion list. Chappell stated that the original Charter
Review Commission removed this from the list in the model charter, but lie is unsure of
the reasoning. Discussion turned to the first Charter Review Commission, and whether
this issue was part of the Charter at that time. Chappell asked if they were at the point
where they wanted to propose language to change (j) Amendments to this Charter.
Sueppel stated that he would suggest wording of "Amendments to the City Zoning
Ordinance." Chappell asked if this would cover the Comprehensive Plan also. Sueppel
stated that by adding "Comprehensive Plan' he feels it covers these issues. Sueppel
asked the members if there were any other discussions on (a) through (k), and Dilkes
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2004
Page 4
again noted that clarification as to when a capital project went from plan to execution was
necessary. Dilkes then suggested that it might be helpful to have staff from Public Works
come and explain the process to the members. The discussion started to wrap up as 9:00
AM approached. Dilkes asked the members if they want further information, and
members gave feedback on having staff attend the next meeting.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
Future meetings were set for September 8, 27, and 29, starting at 7:00 AM, and running
until 9 :30 AM. For October, meeting dates are 13, 20, and 27, also from 7:00 AM until
9:30 AM. Members were encouraged to let Karr know of their schedules, and any
changes that take place. Chairperson Sueppel asked that all members come to meetings
prepared to review the material so they can continue moving at a good pace. The City
Council deadline for this Commission is May 4, 2005, with the plan to present to the
Council in March. It is hoped to have the public hearings after the first of the year.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved for adjournment of the meeting at 9:25 AM; seconded
by Rowat. Motion carried.
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick,
Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green
Members Absent: Vicki Lensing
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes, Rick Fosse
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM. He noted that Lensing
would not be present at this meeting.
APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 26.2004
Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. Chappell noted that on page 3,
second full paragraph, nine lines down: "Chappell stated that the original Charter
Review Commission removed this [emergency exception] from the list in the model
charter..." He asked to clarify this statement by adding that it was a later Charter Review
Commission that removed this, as the original Charter did have the provision on
emergency ordinances.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the August 26, 2004, minutes as written.
Chappell seconded. Motion carried 8 — 0 (Lensing absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sueppel stated that there was one public comment from John Neff, which is outlined in a
memo from John.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the correspondence from John Neff. Davidsen
seconded. Motion carried 8 — 0 (Lensing absent).
REVIEW CHARTER — Article VII hritiative and Referendum
Sueppel noted that everyone should have received a copy of Dilkes' memo regarding the
proposed amendment to Section 7.01 — using the word "measure" in place of
"ordinance." At the last meeting, the members had asked that Dilkes review this section,
and give them a proposed amendment. Kubby asked if it wouldn't be better to have
Public Works Director Rick Fosse speak with them first about the time -line for capital
projects issue that they had previously questioned. Members agreed.
Fosse gave some background on the time -line handout that the members had been given.
He noted that this is a general guideline for the projects in Public Works. Members asked
general questions about projects of this nature. Kubby questioned when the public is
aware of capital improvement projects — at what stage do people pay attention. Fosse
stated that they now have what they call a pre - design meeting, where they go out and
Charter Review Commission
September 8, 2004
Page 2
meet with neighbors in the area where a project is being planned. This way they can talk
with those in the area and get their concerns up front. Sueppel asked where on the time-
line does the City Council become involved. Fosse explained that they do not even begin
to design a project without a funding source, so this involves the Council, as they must
have the funding in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
Sueppel asked Dilkes where she draws the line between Administrative and Legislative
on these issues. Dilkes gave examples from the First Avenue project, and how she made
her determinations on that particular project. She stated that the Charter's current
wording is not clear at all, and that this is a concern. Rowat stated that he feels using
"public improvements," instead of "capital improvements," would make this issue
clearer. Kubby asked where the first "legislative" issue is, after the property acquisition
begins. Fosse stated that the first legislative point is approval of the Capital Programs;
secondly, the point where they would go to the Council to start the acquisition process;
and the third legislative action begins with the bidding process and public hearings. The
final legislative action is to accept the public improvement. Dilkes reiterated her concern
on where this line is between legislative and administrative. Sueppel stated that the real
question is whether the citizens should have the right to do their own legislation on
Capital Projects. Discussions continued on this issue, and whether or not the citizens
should be able to stop a capital project once it has begun, and various other related issues.
Sueppel asked if members would give their thinking on the present issue, and he asked
Chappell to start. Chappell stated that he feels this is a balancing issue, and that it does
need to be more clear. He likes the idea of the "property acquisition" being their "line,"
and is not comfortable with taking this out completely. Kubby and Green both stated
they agree with Chappell. Novick stated that she would consider removing capital
improvement projects if they are defined in some way, with an exception, although she is
not sure yet what that exception should be. Werner stated that he is also in agreement
with Chappell. Davidsen noted that she believes the citizens have a right to question
capital improvement programs, and that specific projects also need citizen input. She
stated she agrees with Chappell, but that this needs to stay in in some way. Rowat stated
that public input and the right to question almost anything is very important. He said it
seems they are all leaning towards cutting this process off, but that there needs to be
perhaps a better way to publicize these issues to the citizens. Sueppel stated that whether
there is property acquisition or not in a project, there needs to be some type of time -line,
and he feels that the public has the right to vote on these issues of capital improvement by
affecting Council. (TAPE ENDS)
Discussion continued among the members, with questions being asked of Fosse on the
time -line of City projects. Sueppel asked if anyone had anything else to add to the
discussion. Davidsen stated that she felt they had had a good discussion, and that she
would like to hear what Dilkes thinks about the point of property acquisition being the
point of cutting off initiative and referendum. Dilkes stated this does help the line -
drawing issue of capital projects, and she gave various examples of acquiring property
and how the City Council handles these matters. Karr also gave background on the types
Charter Review Commission
September 8, 2004
Page 3
of calls and questions the City gets from the public on how they go about stopping
various projects.
Sueppel asked for clarification of the city budget and how the capital improvement plan
plays into this. Dilkes and Karr responded that the budget is not the capital improvement
plan, but that a lump sum for the CIP is in the budget. Members discussed CIP from the
past, such as the First Avenue project, and how the City handled the problems that arose
at that time. Chappell stated that he would snake a motion to add the exclusion, item (K),
and asked that Dilkes give them some language based on his motion. The discussion
continued with Dilkes asking for clarification from the members on the wording of this
exclusion. The Commission agreed that they want to include all projects that would
appear on the CIP, regardless of size.
MOTION: Chappell moved to add Limitation (K) to exclude from Initiative and
Referendum, public improvements after such point that the City has authorized or
has acquired property. Kubby seconded. Motion carried 8 — 0 (Lensing absent).
Sueppel then asked the members if they were ready to start on (J). His proposal was,
"Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance are excluded,
deleting the 2 -acre exception." Kubby stated that she still feels this issue should be open
to the public, and that she does not agree with adding the Comprehensive Plan, as
suggested. The discussion continued with various members giving their views on this,
and Dilkes stated that she could give them a legal opinion on this issue. Sueppel said au
opinion was not necessary.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to amend (.n by adding Comprehensive Plan and
deleting the 2 -acre exception. Rowat seconded. Motion carried 7 —1 (ICubby voting
the negative; Lensing absent).
(BREAK)
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
Sueppel asked that they skip ahead to discuss future meeting dates as Green and Kubby
have to leave early. Meetings have been set for September 27 and 29; and October 13
and 20, with all meetings running 7 AM to 9:30 AM. Sueppel stated that he would be
gone on the 20'1' of October, and wondered if October 11th would work. Novick asked
that they plan a public hearing early in October, so that Davidsen could be part of that
process, as she will be leaving the end of October. Rowat asked for clarification of what
type of format this public hearing would be. Sueppel stated that they need to make some
decisions before they hold this public hearing, so there will be items for public
discussion. Some outstanding issues are: today's decisions of increasing or clarifying
initiative or referendum limitations; the directly- elected mayor issue; and the district
versus at -large seats issue. (TAPE ENDS)
Charter Review Commission
September 8, 2004
Page 4
Discussion returned to whether or not the members could meet on October l It". It was
agreed to add this date to the October schedule. Sueppel then asked if the members
wanted to have the public hearing on the evening of October 13tt'. Dilkes reminded them
that they need to leave plenty of time in order to get packets out, a press release done, and
public notification given. Davidsen stated that she feels they should have a less
structured public hearing, with this first one being fairly open to whatever discussions
come up. (Green left mtg. 8:45 AM) Chappell stated that he recommends that Karr
come to the next meeting with a list of potential dates for public hearings, and that they
add to the agenda what they want exactly for the public hearing discussion to be, as well
as type of format for the hearing. Karr asked for some direction from the members, and
asked that they give her two or three dates, and time of day as well. After much
discussion, the members decided to meet October 11 and 13, from 7 -9 AM for their
regular review meeting, and to look at October 12, from 7 -9 PM for the public hearing. It
was also agreed that October 20 and 27"' would be regular morning meetings, and if
changes need to be made to the schedule, they can always cancel.
REVIEW CHARTER (tout.)
Sueppel next discussed Dilkes' memo to the Commission, regarding the proposed
amendment to Section 7.01— Ordinance vs. Measure. A brief discussion ensued where
members asked Dilkes how this amendment will make the Charter clearer, and which
wording changes were made to this section.
MOTION: Chappell moved to approve the amendment to the Charter, in
accordance with Dilkes' draft of September 1, 2004. Davidsen seconded. Motion
carried 7 — 0 (Green and Lensing absent).
Sueppel reviewed what has been accomplished on Section B. Limitations, (1) Subject
Matter thus far: agreed to add some language (k) to exclude capital projects after
property has been acquired and amend 0) regarding zoning. Various discussions took
place to clarify these amendments, and Dilkes will work with the wording and present it
to the Commission. Sueppel next addressed (2) Resubmission and the 2 -year date.
There were no changes or additions made here. Kubby asked about B (3) Council
Repeal, Amendment and Reenactment, and if there was, for example, an initiative that
passed, can the Council be inactive on this specific issue, or must they act on it.
C. Construction (1) Scope of Power — Chappell asked if the word "voters" should be
changed to "electors." Sueppel stated that it would be helpful if the members would
make note of language and grammatical errors, versus substantial changes, so that these
changes can be adopted by the Council sooner. Discussion next turned to (2) Initiative
(a) and Sueppel questioned the repeal part of this section. Novick stated that she has a
problem with this one due to the wording. She would like to simplify this and say, "A
petition will be valid if it repeals or amends," rather than "no petition will be invalid."
Other members noted that this would be a substantive change, and Dilkes gave some
examples.
Charter Review Commission
September 8, 2004
Page 5
(3) Referendum — Sueppel stated that he has no problems with this section. (Kubby left
at 9:20 AM) The discussion next turned to D. Effect of Filing Petition. There were no
additions or changes to this section. E. City Obligations — the next section was
discussed, and Dilkes' changes were noted. Discussion of Section 7.01. General
Provisions was wrapped up at 9:25 AM.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 AM. Rowat seconded.
Motion carried 6 — 0 (Kubby, Green, and Lensing absent).
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick,
William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left 8:55), Lynn Rowat
(arrived 7:20), Vicki Lensing
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM. He stated that Rowat
would be a bit late today.
APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2004
Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. Sueppel clarified with Dilkes what
he was proposing on page 3, third paragraph, regarding the 2 -acre exception.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the minutes as written. Sueppel seconded the
motion. Motion carried 8 -0 ( Rowat late to meeting).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sueppel stated for the record that City Council member Bob Elliott is present at today's
meeting. He asked if any of the members had received any correspondence from the
public regarding the Charter Review. Davidsen stated that she and Novick received a call
from a committee of the League of Women Voters, and they are planning to attend the
Wednesday, September 29th meeting. Novick stated that the members who will be
attending are doing so as individuals, and are not representing the League at this point.
They are interested in raising some questions on leadership among the elected officials.
Sueppel noted that there is a conflict with a sheriffs debate on the same night as the
Charter Review's first public hearing, but since it is the first hearing, it hopefully won't
have too much of an impact.
REVIEW CHARTER
Sueppel started with Section 7.02 Commencement of Proceedings; Affidavit. Sueppel
asked if anyone had any comments on Section A. Commencement. Kubby stated that
she had a comment on Section B. Affidavit; City Clerk is not capitalized consistently.
Sueppel stated that if no one else had any comments, they would consider this section as
"temporarily approved." Chappell asked Karr if the time frame is a problem under
Section B. Affidavit where it states "the same day." Karr responded that this has not
been a problem. She then answered various questions from members regarding the
process in her office.
7.03. Petitions; Revocation of Signatures was discussed next. Kubby discussed A.
Number of Signatures, and stated that she is wanting some type of benchmark here, in
order to get a broader community input. Other members gave their opinion on this issue,
Charter Review Commission
September 27, 2004
Page 2
and discussion continued on whether this number is too high, or too low. It was decided
to temporarily approve this section for now, and further discussion can be held as more
information is provided. Discussion turned to B. Form and Content, with Chappell
questioning the phrase "and any other information required by City Council." He asked
how this works, by either motion or resolution; and he also stated that he questions how
good of an idea it is to have the Council mentioned here. Various scenarios were
discussed, and whether or not this is needed in this Section. Sueppel asked why the date
of birth is not required here. Karr gave some history on why birth dates are not required
in voting, and stated that they added birth date later, in order to aid the process of keeping
the registered voters straight.
MOTION: Chappell moved to delete the phrase "...and any other information
required by City Council' deleted from B. Form and Content. Kubby seconded the
motion. Motion carried 9 -0.
The discussion then turned to C. Affidavit of Circulator. Members asked various
questions regarding this process, and Karr explained how her office handles the affidavit
process. Kubby read off of an actual Affidavit form to let members know how the
wording is handled, i.e., at the bottom, "qualified" is defined. This section was then
temporarily approved. Next, the members discussed D. Time for Filing Initiative
Petitions. Members were asked to look at the chart that was prepared, and Dilkes
explained the time periods for each section. Some history of past events was discussed,
particularly when the City Clerk's office had to spend inordinate amounts of time
verifying signatures at the last minute, in order to make a November election. (TAPE
ENDS) Dilkes further discussed the 110 -day timeline, and how this was decided upon.
Sueppel recommended that Dilkes present them with some language regarding a
deadline. Novick asked if they should change the six months, but the other members did
not want to change this. Discussion continued on the initiative timeline, and it was noted
that referendum already has specific timelines. Therefore, it was decided to have Dilkes
prepare suggested wording on this issue.
Next E. Tinne For Filing Referendum Petitions was discussed. Kubby stated that she
thought the last sentence was a bit confusing. Sueppel agreed, and stated to Dilkes that
he thought it should read something like "the signatures must be secured within the
timeline stated in 7.02D..." He stated that with a change in D, it would effect E, and
Dilkes said she would review this. Green asked for some clarification on this, and
Sueppel stated that as with the First Avenue project, it was passed, and therefore Council
could not do anything for two years. Basically, either you have to react very quickly, or
you have to let something stand for a while before you can challenge it.
Discussion turned next to F. Revocation of Signature. Sueppel stated that he has a
concern on this section, regarding the revocation. Karr gave some background on why
this was done, giving an example from a past experience, of why people wanted to
withdraw their signatures. The question was raised on whether or not a signature is valid,
and members asked how would it be known if a signature was valid or not. Discussion
Charter Review Commission
September 27, 2004
Page 3
continued among the members on the issue of someone signing a petition, under false
pretenses, and then wanting to withdraw their signature at a later date. The discussion
also touched on the topic of a "yes" vote meaning "no ", and vice versa. Sueppel stated to
the members that the issue here is whether there should be any period of tithe, after a
petition is filed, for a signatory to revoke his or her signature, and that would be equally
true for the original petition and the supplemental petition. His suggestion is that the time
should be less on the supplemental. He then asked each member to give their opinion on
the matter. The majority of the members agreed to keeping the wording in this section as
is.
Section 7.04. Procedure After Tiling, A. Certificate of City Cleric — Sueppel
questioned the language "upon additional papers," and Karr stated the intent of the
wording, saying that it refers to the supplemental petition being handled the same way as
the original petition — the same process is followed. Sueppel stated that if members had
no problem with this section, they would TA it also.
B. Council Review — Chappell started the discussion by asking members if they feel the
Council should have some type of standards to make these determinations. Dilkes
suggested adding something like "will review on the same basis that the City Clerk
reviewed..." or something to that effect. Sueppel encouraged wording be added about
Council review of petitions that the City Clerk finds sufficient (since insufficient is
already included), and discussion continued with members giving their views. (TAPE
ENDS) Sueppel asked if anyone had anything further on this section. Hearing none, this
section was TA'd, with Sueppel voting in the negative.
C. Court Review; New Petition — Sueppel read this section, and stated that he has two
legal issues with this section. One, judicial review is a term that refers strictly to state
law; and two, the whole idea of the city being able to require judicial review by a district
court was challenged in Iowa City years ago, and the Supreme Court "slapped" them
down. He gave the members a brief background on this type of case, and suggested
adding wording that includes "writ of cent." Dilkes agreed that the City cannot confer
jurisdiction on the district court and that a challenge would be by a certiorari action.
Dilkes will propose revised language.
D. Validity of Signatures — The members discussed the wording in this section, and
noted that it brings up the issue of valid signatures again, noting that this section actually
helps to address the validity issues noted previously. Members agreed to TA this section
for now. (Green left meeting at 8:55 AM)
PUBLIC HEARING
Novick stated that she would like to see "public comments" and "citizen input" toward
the top of the media release, public flyer, with the emphasis on the "citizens," rather than
on the Charter Review itself. Other members agreed that this is a good idea, as they want
the public to be a big part of this. Next, the time was discussed, with members agreeing
that giving a starting time of 7:00 PM is best, with no definite ending time. Chappell
Charter Review Commission
September 27, 2004
Page 4
stated that lie feels it is a good idea to list some of the items they are working on, in order
to give some reference to the public on issues for them to respond to. Sueppel suggested
they list some "exclusions" that they've decided on thus far, as this would give the public
something to address.
The discussion turned to Kubby discussing public education, and how they can use the
public hearings for this. It was also suggested that the first public hearing be left open,
with no specific issues being listed. Karr asked the members to think about how they
want this public hearing structured. She gave them various issues to consider, such as
how they want to start the hearing, how much time they will give the public to speak,
how they want to respond to questions, etc. Members discussed issues concerning how
they want the room set up (on the dais); how they want the opening statement to be
handled (chair to give a verbal summary); setting a 5- minute time limit for the public to
speak; a summary of comments received thus far (to be available for hand - outs); having a
suggestion sheet or something for the public to weigh in on the Charter Review process;
whether the members want the hearing to be televised; having copies of the Charter
available; and miscellaneous other details.
Further discussion of details will be discussed at the September 29 meeting, and staff will
prepare draft of press release /ad /or poster for further discussion at that meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved for adjournment of the meeting at 9:40 AM; seconded
by Kubby. Motion carried.
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick,
William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green, Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
There were no minutes to approve.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sueppel stated that several guests had joined the meeting. Lolly Eggers and Carol
Spaziani, both from the League of Women Voters Regional Government Committee,
gave the members some public input from research they have conducted over the past
three years, regarding the forms, structures, advantages, and disadvantages of regional
government, and how they might apply to Johnson County, and its local jurisdictions.
The League spoke with twenty -five some different individuals, and have come up with
specific observations and points that they want the Charter Review Committee to be
aware of. Some community issues received by the League are: 1) the City Manager
needs to be directly responsible to the people; 2) favor a strong elected mayor; 3) need
collective leadership; 4) in the City, the City Manager is the leader, whereas in the
County, all five supervisors are; 5) professional management inherently slows
intergovernmental process; 6) strong personalities with leadership abilities,
commitment, and vision need to be involved; 7) the problem is political leadership; 8)
the key will be political leadership; 9) I'm in favor of a strong mayor; 10) there must be
strong leadership; 11) in favor of a strong mayor.
MOTION: Kubby proved to accept the correspondence frmn the League of Women
Voters; Lensing seconded. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS
Karr gave the members a couple of drafts of the notification for the upcoming public
hearing. Members reviewed the drafts, and started discussion on how they want this
notification to read. The majority of the members stated they like draft #1 best. Werner
suggested they add the dates of future meetings, as the public can also attend the regular
meetings. Davidsen suggested adding the paragraph: "Bill Sueppel, Chair of the
ICCRC, will report on the Commission's review of the Charter provisions to date.
Thereafter, citizens in attendance or who have submitted written comments, will be
recognized. Public input is considered a necessary part of the Commission's review
process." Sueppel suggested use of the phrase "we want to hear from you," in order to
peak the public's interest. The Committee members agreed to give Karr and Dilkes the
Charter Review Commission
September 29, 2004
Page 2
authority to go ahead with a press release, based on today's discussion. Display ads will
not be done for this meeting but may be considered for upcoming hearings.
Discussion turned to the length of time that the public will be allowed to speak.
Everyone agreed that five minutes per speaker would be the standard, and if time allows
and someone wants to speak again, they will allow this. Karr stated that the public
hearing would be televised. Sueppel asked Karr to come up with some numbers prior to
the public hearing, showing the hours spent reviewing, what the Committee has done to
date, etc.
REVIEW CHARTER
( Kubby distributed an information table on voter turnout on initiative or referendum
elections since 1985)
Section 7.05. Action on Petitions. — The discussion started with the next section, A.
Action by Council, and Chappell asked questions in regards to the time frames, asking if
this is enough time for the City Clerk and City Attorney to complete what needs to be
done. Dilkes and Karr both stated that the time frames have not been a problem. Sueppel
stated that lie is concerned about the second sentence, where it states, "...fails to adopt a
measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the Council fails to repeal
the ..." He asked members if they thought it should say "AND" instead of "OR ", and
members gave their view, with most stating that it could read either way. Discussion
turned to the third full sentence in this section: The Council shall submit to the voters
any measure 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. Sueppel
stated that he feels this sentence is unnecessary, and could even be confusing. The
members agreed, and a motion was made to delete the third, fill sentence in 7.05,
Section A. Action by Council.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to delete the third full sentence of Section A. Action by
Council; Kubby seconded. Motion carried.
(TAPE ENDS)
Section B. Submission to Voters was discussed next. Dilkes gave some background on
the forty -day period, and elections. There was no further discussion on this section so it
was TAU
Section 7.06. Results of Election. A. Initiative. — Sueppel questioned the clause at the
end of the first sentence: ...except as provided in Section 7.OI13(3). Chappell gave an
explanation, stating that an ordinance, which is passed by initiative, cannot be repealed
for two years. Consequently, what this clause means is that once an initiative is passed, it
is an ordinance, just like any other ordinance, except it cannot be repealed for two years.
Sueppel suggested putting a period after "election results," and then have the next
sentence start with "The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects..." Karr
Charter Review Commission
September 29, 2004
Page 3
suggested a coma, instead of a period. Chappell recommended a motion to make this
clearer.
MOTION: Chappell made a motion to put a period in the first sentence, after
"election results "; delete the word "and;" and then start the next sentence with
"The adopted measure... "; Novick seconded. Motion carried.
B. Referendum. Kubby started the discussion with asking about the wording "vote
against it." Members gave their opinion on why the wording is this way. Various
wording was discussed, and Sueppel asked members for their approval to have Dilkes
rewrite this section for their review.
Section 7.07. Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or Requirements.
Novick asked why this section needs to be here, as you cannot change any other part of
the Charter without an amendment. Dilkes cautioned the members on removing entire
sections, and how this can become a problem later. The members decided that this
section should stand as is, and TA'd the section.
Sueppel stated that they have now reviewed the Charter in full. Chappell noted that he
had a question in regards to Section 8 Charter Amendments and Review, and whether
they can amend this to allow the Council to submit a proposed amendment to the voters
at a both General Elections and City Elections. Dilkes stated that the language in Section
8.01 comes from the State Code. The idea of using "Special Election" was discussed,
and it was decided that Dilkes would come up with proposed wording for the Committee
to review.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
Dilkes stated that she and Karr need to leave Wednesday meetings by 8:45 AM, in order
to make a staff meeting that they have every Wednesday. The October 13111 meeting will
be from 7 -8:45 AM, with the 20'11 and 27th remaining at 9:30 AM. Sueppel asked
members to review their calendars for a November date. November 8t and 22nd were
both scheduled for 7 -9:30 AM.
The members then agreed to have Karr come up with some various dates, and meeting
rooms, for future public hearings. She will look at the time period November 15 thru
December 15, and will check the library's availability, as well as Harvat Hall. Chappell
stated that at a future meeting he would like to discuss the citizen proposals that are the
subject of the pending lawsuit. Sueppel asked if Chappell wanted Dilkes to lead this
discussion, since she is familiar with it. Sueppel asked if he was referring to the Michael
Berent lawsuit, and Chappell stated he was. Sueppel asked that this be added to a future
agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Chatter Review Commission
September 29, 2004
Page 4
MOTION: Kubby moved for adjournment of the meeting at 9:10 AM; seconded by
Chappell. Motion carried.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick (left
at 9:25 AM), Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left at 8:50 AM), Lynn Rowat, William
Sueppel, Chair
Members Absent: Vicki Lensing
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:05 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27 and SEPTEMBER 29.2004
Chairperson Sueppel asked if the members had any corrections or comments for the
minutes. Davidsen said she had comments for the September 29 minutes; site then
moved to approve the September 27, 2004, minutes.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to accept the September 27, 2004, minutes as written;
seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 8 -0.
Davidsen stated that she wanted it made clear that the representatives that spoke from the
League of Women Voters were there on their own, and not speaking for the League. Site
stated that the second sentence, under Public Comment, "The League spoke with twenty -
five some different individuals, and have come up with specific observations and points
that they want the Charter Review Committee to be aware of." Davidsen would like it
made clearer that these people were speaking as individuals, and not as the League of
Women Voters. Sueppel stated that Ire understood it to be the reports of others'
comments. Novick stated that the League has a study committee that has done some
interviews, and these comments were from that study group, and not from the League
itself. She suggested that they mention the Regional Government Committee. Karr said
she would add the Regional Government Committee to the second line, and members
agreed.
Sueppel stated that Ire has not noticed mention of Kubby's report on voting returns. Karr
said it was distributed at the meeting on the 29r", but that it was not formally accepted.
Sueppel asked that some mention be made of this report.
MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the September 29, 2004, minutes as amended;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Charter Review Commission
October 11, 2004
Page 2
REVIEW CHARTER
Chappell discussed Dilkes' memo of July 26, 2001, in regards to Proposed Amendments
to the Home Rule Charter. Three amendments were proposed at that time for: 1) to
provide for Council appointment of both the City Manager and the Chief of Police, and to
have each subject to a retention vote; 2) to make permanent the Police Citizens Review
Board; 3) create a new article directing the police to use citation in lieu of arrest for non -
violent misdemeanor offenses to limit the use of certain police procedures, and giving
non- violent offenders the opportunity to show up voluntarily instead of arresting them.
After giving some history on the decisions at that time, Chappell asked if anyone felt that
these issues should be part of the Charter amendments, and if so, which do people want to
pursue further. Members showed an interest in discussing the Police Chief position, and
how the appointments are made. At the request of the Commission, Karr explained her
involvement in the process used in the past, where a staff team gave their
recommendations to the City Manager for the current Police Chief position. Rowat
talked about the accountability of these positions, and the part the Council plays in this.
The members discusses( how the Police Chief position is different from other department
heads within the City, and also how policy is made within the City and its various
departments. Dilkes stated that it has always been interpreted that the City Manager
would have the City Council approve his selection for Police Chief. Green asked if
everyone would give their opinion on the issue of having the Police Chief appointed by
the Council. Kubby stated she would be in favor. Chappell said lie would be in favor of
looking into the issue further. Novick stated she would not be in favor. Green stated he
would be in favor. Sueppel and Werner both stated they would not be. (TAPE ENDS)
Davidsen stated she would be interested in a Police Citizen Review Board, and encourage
an ordinance to the effect of that. Karr stated that there is such a board now. Davidsen
stated that having this board more in the forefront would be her thought, but she wanted
to think it over more. Rowat stated he would be opposed to the issue. It was decided that
this issue would be revisited at a later date. The suggestion was also made to have the
City Manager and /or the City Council members meet with the members, and have a
discussion on whatever issues they feel need addressed. (BREAK)
REVIEW OF PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS
Rowat asked if they could review tomorrow's public hearing process, before they start
the review process of the Charter. The members agreed with Sueppel that they were
happy with the announcement of the hearing. Karr asked the members if they wanted to
tentatively set a second public hearing date. It was decided to look at Wednesday,
December Isr, at the library, 5:30 PM. Since Davidsen will not be available on December
Isr, Karr will get a tape of that hearing to her.
REVIEW CHARTER (cont)
Dilkes stated that there were a number of questions posed to her by members as they
carried out their review process the first time through. She is planning on having a memo
for the members, with her opinions and any answers to questions posed, by the end of the
month.
Charter Review Commission
October 11, 2004
Page 3
The Commission began the re- review of the Charter, beginning with the Preamble.
There were no changes or additions voiced.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to TA (temporarily approve) the Preamble of tine
Charter; seconded by Green. Motion carried 8 -0.
Definitions — Davidsen questioned items 11 and 12, and Dilkes noted the change made
with the use of "measure." The issue of a directly elected mayor was discussed, and it
was noted that this section would have to change if that process were to change.
MOTION: Green moved to TA the Definitions section of the Charter; Rowat
seconded. Motion carried 8 -0.
Article I Powers of the City — Sueppel asked if there were any comments or questions.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA all of Article I; seconded by Novick. Motion
carried 8 -0.
Article II City Council — Davidsen asked about "eligible electors" and what the
rationale is in not having "qualified electors." Karr stated that this is State code. Sueppel
stated they would first look at Section 2.01. Composition. Novick stated that she has
questions regarding the districts only, but not the seven - member council.
MOTION: Rowat moved to TA Section 2.01 Composition as it relates to the seven
member make -up of Council; seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 8 -0.
Sueppel asked if anyone was interested in charging the number of Council members, as
far as at -large versus district. Kubby asked that they put this in the "discussion hopper,"
as it is something she wants to revisit, once they get through some other topics. Chappell
noted that his suggestion initially was to have the mayor position be an at -large position,
and not be a monumental change, as some have suggested. Discussion continued with
members reviewing the issue of having the mayor be in an at -large seat, along with three
other at -large members, and the remaining three members would be from specific
districts. Karr questioned how often the mayoral position would be elected, and it was
stated that it would be every four years, like other Council seats. The members agreed
that this issue would need to be addressed further. (Green left meeting at 8:50 AM)
(TAPE ENDS)
The discussion continued on the topic of how many Council members to have, and
whether they should be at -large or district seats, and also how the mayoral position would
fit in with this. Rowat stated that he is not uncomfortable with having the mayor elected,
but that it seems more ceremonial than substantive in nature. Davidsen stated that she
feels there are two different questions here, one being representation of the people by
district. She feels this is totally separate than the mayoral issue. Sueppel stated that he
does not see any advantage of having an elected mayor, and that it world throw a wrench
Charter Review Commission
October 11, 2004
Page 4
into the current process of government in Iowa City. He feels the members need to
review this further, to see if a change such as this would be a benefit. He would like to
hear from previous Council members on this issue too. The issue of leaders was briefly
discussed, with the issue of "strong leaders" being tossed around. Members also
discussed the powers that a mayor should or should not have, as well as political
platforms and how these issues effect the position. (Novick left meeting at 9:25 AM).
The members decided they will revisit this topic again at another meeting, as they have
several issues to decide before they can further TA the Charter.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Chappell moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 AM; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 6 -0 (Green and Novick left meeting early).
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION — PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004 — 7:00 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick,
William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green, Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the public hearing to order at 7:00 PM. He briefly reviewed
the steps that the Commission has taken to date including 9 meetings and 17 hours of
discussion. He emphasized to the public that the task of the Commission is to review the
Charter, and to make any appropriate amendments to the City Council. The City
Council's role is to submit these amendments to the people for a vote. He encouraged
input from the public.
PUBLIC INPUT
Garry Klein spoke to the Commission, giving three general statements regarding the
Charter. He feels the Preamble sets the tone of what the Charter ought to be. He touched
on open meetings, and the chance for the public to take part. He suggested an appendix
to the Charter, where ordinances and laws were referenced, and more explanation of
terms. In looking at Article H, he said that it is clear that with growth they also need to
change the districts. Klein went on to say that he feels the mayoral position should be an
elected one. In regards to 2.08, City hiring, he noted that the Police and Fire Chief are
hired by the City Manager. Klein feels the City Council should be part of this process.
Section 2.09 — Klein stated that the wording "may make its own rules" caught his
attention in this section. Under Section 2.10, he asked what the state law is in regards to
this, and said having that state law would help the average citizen understand the Charter
better.
Bob Elliott, current Council Member, spoke on the issue of the number of council
members and districts. He stated that the at -large seats are very important, and he feels
they should continue to form the majority of the representation. He thanked the Charter
Review Commission for the fine job they are doing thus far.
Klein returned to the podium to speak. He spoke next about Section 4.02 — Conflict of
Interest— stating that there is nothing in the Charter about there being no compensation
other than that provided by the City. Section 4.04 B.2. — he feels this should be made
clearer. Next he discussed 5.0 1, which deals with the formation of commissions, task
forces, workgroups, etc., and stated that lie feels there should be a better than majority
reason to disband a group. He suggests adding "with 2 /3rds of the Council's approval
(5/7) to change or disband.......," stating that they should enlarge the definition to
encompass all of these various groups.
Charter Review Commission
October 12, 2004
Page 2
Klein went on to mention Section 7.01 A.1, stating that as a point of clarity, the wording
should be changed, but he did not have a good replacement. 7.01. B. 1. g. — he asked to
add the words "except City Council, Mayor, City Manager, and other elected officials';
as this section has to do with salaries. He stated that he feels at the city level there should
be more control over this, and the voters should have a say as to elected officials getting
raises. Under section 7.01 B. 1. j, he suggests the wording, "except for in the case of
things that would be protected by state or federal law." 7.03 A — he stated he has some
trouble with this one due to the requirement of being a qualified voter. He states it should
say "eligible voters" as they should still be able to partake in the petition process. 7.05 A
— "similar in substance" — Klein asked what this means exactly. Under 7.06 A, Klein said
this section is unclear, and lie used the municipal electric issue as an example. Dilkes
explained to him that this referendum type is not the referendum under the Charter but is
a franchise issue covered by state law. Lastly, section 8.02 — formation of commissions —
Klein asked how commissions are selected, using the Charter Review Commission as an
example. Sueppel explained the reverse referendum process to Klein. Again, Dilkes
noted that many of these issues are covered by state code. Klein wrapped up his
presentation asking why the Charter Review is done every ten years, instead of yearly.
He stated that with the growth in Iowa City, a review done more often would be
beneficial. Sueppel explained that the Charter can be amended at any time, and that it is
just the Commission that meets every ten years for a review process.
Sueppel reminded the public that there will be at least five more meetings, starting at 7:00
AM and running through 9:30 AM, and lie suggested that the public either attend those
meetings, or send written concerns to the Commission. There will also be another public
hearing in the near future.
Karr asked for a motion to accept correspondence.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept correspondence from Rod Sullivan; seconded
by Rowat. Motion carried 9 -0.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Novick moved to adjourn; Green seconded. Motion carried 9 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.
Charter Review Commission
October 13, 2004
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick,
Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left at 8:45 AM), Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing,
William Sueppel, Chair
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:03 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES
None.
The Commission members briefly discussed "10 Years of District Elections" spreadsheet
prepared by the City Clerk (at the request of the Chair) to show outcome of district
primaries; and the outcome of district general elections broken down within the district
and citywide.
REVIEW OF PUBLIC INPUT AT OCTOBER 12 PUBLIC HEARING
Sueppel stated that lie was somewhat disappointed at the turnout at last night's public
hearing. The "transparency" issue of the Charter was discussed, and Sueppel suggested
that the City Council may wish to direct the City Attorney to prepare an explanation of
the Charter, and where the various sections come from, by referencing State Code, etc.
They could then have this explanation available along with the Charter. The members
discussed various issues, such as an appendix to the Charter, and whether they should
pursue a more annotated version of the Charter. Sueppel suggested there be a "Citizen's
Guide to the Iowa City Charter," where a citizen's group would sit down and prepare a
guide to help the general public understand the City Charter. Dilkes stated that she would
be more comfortable having the City Attorney's office work on this guide, although
citizen input would be very helpful in creating such a guide.
Kubby's handout to the members of "A Community Process" was discussed next.
Sueppel asked how the members wanted to handle this. Karr stated that if the members
plan to make Kubby's proposal part of the next public hearing, then they need to
publicize differently. It was decided that Kubby's proposal would be added to the
October 20 '11 meeting agenda and discussed at that time.
REVIEW CHARTER
Sueppel noted that the members have received Dilkes' red -lined version of the Charter.
The discussion picked up with Section 2.01 Composition. Sueppel stated that since they
Charter Review Commission
October 13, 2004
Page 2
still have issues with the at -large versus district representation, and the issue of how they
are elected, as well as how the mayoral seat is chosen, they would move on to Section
2.02 Division into council districts. Chappell stated that he feels they should wait until
they have the actual language, so as to eliminate any confusion. Section 2.03 Eligibility
had one change, using "an eligible elector" instead of "a domiciliary."
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA 2.03 Eligibility as written; seconded by Lensing.
Motion carried 9 -0.
The discussion turned to Section 2.04 Terms. Sueppel asked if anyone felt there should
be any changes to this section. It was noted that if there were any amendments to the
composition of the City Council, then there could also be a change in this section.
However, it was felt that "terms" should be left as is for now.
MOTION: Novick moved to TA 2.04 Terms as written; Lensing seconded. Motion
carried 9 -0.
Section 2.05 Compensation — It was noted that this topic was mentioned in a letter the
Commission received from Rod Sullivan. Sueppel asked if anyone was interested in
discussing full -time positions for the Council members, and no one indicated an interest.
Davidsen noted that she would like to see Section 2.05 changed into two separate
sentences, with the first sentence ending with, "...the Mayor and the other Council
members." The word "and" would be removed, and the second sentence would start,
"The Council shall not adopt such..."
MOTION: Davidsen moved to eliminate the "," and remove the word "and ",
starting a second sentence as noted above; seconded by Novick. Motion carried 9 -0.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA 2.05 Compensation as amended; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 9 -0.
Section 2.06 Mayor — discussion turned to the next section, and it was noted that this
section would involve more lengthy discussions. From the public comments received
thus far, it was noted that there is an interest in looking into having a directly elected
mayor. Discussion centered on leadership, and how the members view this position of
leadership; whether or not this position should be elected by the citizens or by the other
Council members; and whether the process of election would change who runs for the
seat. Lensing brought up experience, and stated that if they changed the process, it could
open the door for less experienced people. Kubby stated that she feels the electorate
should have a more direct voice in who becomes mayor. Sueppel stated that in looking at
the history of the City's mayors, most times the person selected was one who tended to
be a leader anyway. Sueppel noted that any changes to this process would encompass
huge changes for the City, and the members need to keep this in mind. Chappell noted
that there is the perception that it is more democratic to have a directly elected mayor.
Charter Review Commission
October 13, 2004
Page 3
Kubby stated that she has heard several in the community discuss a directly elected
mayor, and she would be interested in considering this as well. Davidsen stated that she
sees that it is the activists in the community that are interested in this type of change, not
the masses, and that it's an ever changing discussion. (TAPE ENDS) Rowat stated that
lie is concerned about the logistics and experience issue when it comes to a directly
elected mayor. He feels that there needs to be some type of educational or learning curve
that a person would need in order to lead the city. Davidsen stated that she wanted to
reiterate that the current form of government in Iowa City is working, and working well.
She noted that the Council members are directly elected, and she gave some history on
the City's government. Sueppel stated that many positions within the City used to be
elected positions, but that was changed about fifty years ago, as there were inherent
problems with this. He further noted that the City is a Charter form of government, not a
City Manager form of government, but that we do use a mix of both forms. Chappell
noted that if you look back to about thirty years ago, the original Charter Commission
had lengthy discussions about the same issue of whether the mayor should be directly
elected or not. The reasons given back then included that if you had an elected mayor,
that position and the City Manger position would be at odds with each other. Novick
noted that Coralville has an independently elected mayor, and also a professional City
Manager, and she asked the members to think about whether or not this works well.
Sueppel noted that they have a different form of government in Coralville. Novick stated
that she feels they should move on in their discussions, and reconsider this section next
week. Green stated that he feels they should address this issue first, as future decisions
will hinge upon their decision here. Werner noted that lie questions term limits, and
asked if other members were interested in this discussion. Lensing suggested that the
Commission publicize a decision on this issue, as this would cause some reaction in the
public, which world then bring in more public input. Sueppel asked the members to state
if they want to leave 2.06 Mayor as is, or entertain a change to have the mayor elected by
the people. Chappell stated he would be interested in change; Novick stated she prefers
to leave it as is; Lensing stated she would keep it as is, and wants to encourage more
discussion; Green stated he would keep it as is, but that he is open to change; Sueppel
noted he would stay as is; Werner would also keep it as is; Kubby noted she would be
interested in change; Davidsen stated she would keep it as is, but is open to change; and
Rowat also would keep it as is, but is open to change also. The members agreed that
more public input is needed and must be encouraged.
The discussion turned to term limits, and Kubby asked if anyone wanted to discuss this
issue. It was noted that the current mayor, Ernie Lehman, is on his fourth term. Karr
recalled two others have had three terms each, in regards to the mayoral seat. No further
interest was shown on this topic, so the Chair opted to move on.
Section 2.07 General Powers and Duties — Sueppel noted that Garry Klein at the public
hearing the previous evening had questioned this section. Dilkes noted that the initiative
and referendum section is a good example of why this wording is needed, and Sueppel
agreed.
Charter Review Commission
October 13, 2004
Page 4
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 2.07; seconded by Chappell. Motion
carried 9 -0.
Section 2.08 Appointments — Green started the conversation with the topic of the Police
Chief being elected by the Council, stating that this is the section that would go under. It
was also noted that Garry Klein had noted both the Police and Fire Chiefs should be hired
this way. Novick mentioned a public security position, and whether the City should
consider such a position. Sueppel started reading Section 2.08, noting that subsections A,
B, C, and D all seem to be fine as is. He questioned the second section of E, where it
talks about job - related criteria. He feels this should be a subsection of its own. Sueppel
then asked if anyone wanted to discuss the appointment of the Police Chief; and Kubby
stated that she feels they should have a discussion about it. She stated this department is
different from other city departments that provide a service. Dilkes noted that these
positions are subject to the civil service testing process. Discussion continued among the
members, with several giving their view of whether or not the Police and Fire Chief
positions should be appointed by the Council, or by the City Manager. Karr reminded the
Commission that the City Manager is available to attend one of their meetings, if they
would like to discuss any of these issues with him. (TAPE ENDS) Kubby asked what
kind of effects would take place internally, asking if it would raise tensions within
departments, or cause any problems. In response to Kubby, Karr noted that a worse case
scenario would be that the Chiefs would have two bosses, so to speak. Chappell asked if
it would cause a negative change, or any legal changes. The discussion ended with
members deciding to continue this issue at the next Charter Review meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Sueppel noted that he will not be able to make the October 20'h meeting as lie will be out
of town. He and Karr discussed setting him up for a telephone conference. Green left the
meeting at 8:45.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 AM; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green left meeting early).
MINUTES FINAL /APPROVED
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick,
Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left at 8:45 AM), Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing, Co-
Chair; with William Sueppel, Chair (via teleconference)
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Co- Chairperson Lensing called the meeting to order at 7:03 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 12 and 13, 2004
Lensing asked if anyone had any corrections or revisions to the minutes from the past
three meetings. Kubby stated that on page 2, under "Review Charter," she is questioning
the sentence that reads: Members showed an interest in discussing the City Manager and
Police Chief positions. Kubby felt that this implies that the members were interested in
discussing the City Manager as it related to the potential amendments, and stated she
would like to remove "City Manager and" from this sentence. Novick noted that on page
one, where site and Davidsen were talking about the League of Women Voters, the
addition of the word "not' is needed after and (...and not speaking for the League.)
Sueppel noted that on page three, under Article 2, it shows that the members made a
motion approving all of Section 2.01 Composition. He stated that the only thing agreed
upon was to keep the Council at seven members. The four /three arrangement of districts
was yet to be decided, as is the issue of district representatives being elected at- large. It
was suggested the wording be clarified to show TA to Section 2.01 Composition
referring to the seven members. Members were in agreement with these revisions.
MOTION: I {ubby moved to accept the October 11, 2004, minutes as amended;
seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 9 -0.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the October 12, 2004, minutes as written;
seconded by Green. Motion carried 9 -0.
Kubby asked for clarification on page two, under Section 2.05 Compensation, where a
letter from Rod Sullivan was mentioned. Sueppel noted that on page two, at the top,
under a motion by Kubby, it states, "as written" and he is suggesting it state "as
amended." It was pointed out that "as written" refers to the redline version of the Charter
distributed by the City Attorney. Kubby stated on page four, 9`h line where it states, "She
questions why this..." should read as, "She stated why this..."
MOTION: Green moved to accept the October 13, 2004, minutes as amended;
seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 9 -0.
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept correspondence from Gariy Klein; seconded by
Chappell. Motion carried 9 -0.
COMMUNITY PROCESS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY MEMBER KUBBY
Kubby started the discussion by saying that she is not particularly attached to the
specifics of how a public process, such as the one she is proposing is run, but that she
does feel that on the most discussed issues that they've had so far, they need to have
some more in -depth conversation with "interested community members." She feels this
will help the Commission move forward on some of the more difficult issues, and will
spark some interest in the community. The discussion turned towards advertising, and
the best way to get this type of public process broadcast to the public. Suggestions of
following up with the media outlets to see if they could do a story, or with certain civic
groups to get more input, were made. Davidsen suggested they invite specific groups,
those with an interest in civic matters. Karr explained the five -week cycle of water bills,
and the timeframe needed to get an ad printed and ready to go. Discussion continued
with members asking Kubby about her proposal, and stating how they would proceed
with the next public hearing. Kubby asked for the members' agreement that they will
have a "highly interactive" public input at the December 1 meeting. With the target date
of December 1 for an "interactive" public hearing, the members decided to set up more
meeting dates between now and the end of November, as well as December dates, in
order to prepare for this type of process.
MEETING SCHEDULE
The following meeting dates and times were agreed upon by the members:
Tuesday, October 26 from 3 -5PM (October 27`h already scheduled) (TAPE ENDS)
Monday, November I from 3 -5PM (November 8 1 & 22nd already scheduled)
Tuesday, November 9 from 3 -5:30 PM
Tuesday, November 16 from 3 -5PM
Lensing asked that Karr add Kubby's "Community Process Proposal" to the agenda of
the October 26 meeting, as well as ideas for promoting this kind of public hearing.
REVIEW CHARTER (Based on 10/12 redlined version submitted by City Attorney)
Discussion began with 2.08 Appointments. The members started a discussion on this
section at the last meeting, and the issue still being discussed is the appointment of the
Police Chief by the City Council. Members questioned the process as it is currently
done, and what the rarnifications would be if the Council did appoint the Police Chief,
Davidson questioned the members on why this issue was being pushed, and whether any
of them have heard of any dissatisfaction with the current process. Lensing asked how
other communities appoint their Police Chief, and Sueppel outlined the options and
history. The civil service process was also discussed, and how the City uses these tests to
obtain candidates for the Police Chief position. Questions of accountability and
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 3
supervision, as well as termination issues, were further discussed by the members. After
much discussion, members were asked to indicate if they wanted to pursue this change.
The majority of the members stated they did not want to change the appointment process
of the Police Chief. Therefore, it was decided to keep the process as it is now, which is
appointment by the City Manager, with approval by the City Council. Language to this
effect will be drafted by Dilkes. (TAPE ENDS) The idea of an ombudsman was briefly
discussed, with the majority of the members stating they did not feel it appropriate for
Charter Review discussion. It was stated that the termination process, and any language
change relating to this, is raider Section 4.04.
MOTION: Chappell moved to keep the Police Chief appointment with the city
manager, and to have the City Attorney draft the language "with the consent of the
City Council." Motion seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 7 -1. Sueppel voting in
the negative, and Green absent.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA (temporarily approve) Section 2.08 A through E;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 2.09 Rules; records — Co -Chair Lensing asked members if they had any
discussion on this section.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.09 as written; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 2.10 Vacancies — Members had no discussion or changes to this section.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.10 as written; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 2.11 Council action — a brief discussion was held on why Dilkes removed B.
from this section. She explained to the members that this section is no longer considered
necessary due to legal changes.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 2.11 as amended by Dilkes; seconded by
Novick. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Novick gave the members a handout on population numbers that she had asked Karr to
prepare. She asked that Karr send this information on to Sueppel and Green, as well, and
that members review this for discussion later. This information is in regards to the
possibility of changing districts within the city.
Section 2.12 Prohibitions — Kubby started the discussion by asking for clarification of
B, in light of the change made in the language in 2.08. Chappell suggested they add the
language, "except as otherwise provided herein." to address this. The discussion
continued on each specific paragraph in this section, and members agreed to have Dilkes
Charter Review Commission
October 20, 2004
Page 4
draft language for B and C, with the clarification being needed due to the Police Chief
appointment change in 2.08 and the approval by the City Council, and how this effects
their participation in this process.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to TA Section 2.12A; Rowat seconded. Motion carried
8 -0 (Green absent).
Dilkes asked the members if they would like a revised edition of the Charter now, or if
they would like to wait until they have gone through the Charter this second time.
Members agreed that they would like to wait until they have gone through the entire
review process again.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 AM; seconded by
Chappell. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
MINUTES FINAL /APPROVED
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2004 — 3:00 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Kevin Werner,
Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; and Naomi Novick (arrived at 3:08 PM),
Vicki Lensing (arrived at 3:08 PM)
Members Absent: Nate Green
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes (arrived at 4:15 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2004
Sueppel asked if members had any corrections, revisions, or amendments to the minutes
as written.
MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the minutes of October 20, 2004, as written;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 6 -0 (Novick, Lensing, and Green absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Karr asked the members to accept correspondence from Mayor Ernie Lehman. Rowat
asked if the letter was personal, or official. Karr stated the letter was a personal one and
not from the Council.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to accept Mayor Ernie Lehman's memo dated October
26, 2004; seconded by Kubby. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
DECEMBER 1, 2004 INPUT SESSION
Kubby first asked that the members read through the handout they received in today's
packet regarding different voting systems, and that they revisit this item at a later
meeting.
Sueppel then asked Kubby to address her idea for the December I" public hearing. She
reviewed her handout from October 13'h, and gave the members further ideas on how
they could gather more public interest and input. She proposes having three or four main
topics that would be discussed in smaller, more intimate groupings. The object being to
get those in attendance to voice their opinions on the topics decided upon by the
Commission. Davidson raised the question of whether or not those in attendance may
have an agenda of their own — specific issues they wish to discuss, and not the three or
four topics the Commission selects. Kubby stated that the way she is proposing they set
up this public session would deter those with a separate agenda. She suggested those
people either write the Commission with their specific concerns, or attend the final public
hearing. Sueppel asked how they would set up these smaller groups, and Kubby
Charter Review Commission
October 26, 2004
Page 2
explained how the Commission members would act as facilitators in leading the groups.
Kubby reminded the members that the first public hearing was designed to be very open,
and that the December I" session is meant to address the Commission's highest priorities
at the time. Lensing noted that keeping this session flexible would be a good idea, as
they don't know just how many people will show tip. Karr reminded the group that
minutes will need to be taken at this session. Members discussed note taking by them
while in the smaller groups, and then having someone from each group give a report to
the group overall.
The members turned next to time limits for these smaller groups, with most agreeing that
a 20 to 30 minute session should be done. Members also discussed how they would
handle these groups, as far as changing topics, changing facilitators, etc. Rowat stated
that Ire had been making a list of topics, and shared his ideas: directly elected mayor; 4/3/
or 3/4 district representation; city wide voting for all seven positions vs. the district
elections; who appoints the city manager, police chief, fire chief; council involvement in
compensation; term limits; initiative and referendum; and retention votes. Sueppel noted
that Kubby had asked that the topic of city manager be removed from the previous
minutes, and Rowat reiterated that these were just some general ideas he had been
keeping notes on. Rowat also suggested inviting someone to write a guest editorial, in
addition to having a press release, in order to get word out to the citizens on the Charter
Review's upcoming public session. The discussion continued on various groups in the
community that the Commission could invite to this session.
The discussion turned back to the time frames the evening of this session, and whether or
not they would need to make a final report that evening. Karr stated they would, in order
to meet standards for the minutes, as each individual group will be taking their own
notes. Lensing talked about the use of flipcharts and how each facilitator could use them
to gather input, and then report back to the group as a whole. This would allow everyone
present that evening to be aware of how each group reacted.
Members next discussed the idea of sending a letter or invitation to service organizations
and other service groups in the community in order to promote the December Isu public
session. Karr then asked the group for their input on how they want their meeting room
set up, dependent on how many people they think may show up. She also brought up
open invitations versus limiting the number of people invited to this session. Sueppel
stated that they should have some type of guide for each facilitator to follow. Karr stated
that she could obtain a listing from the library, which lists service organizations in the
area. She will try to bring this list to Wednesday's meeting. The members agreed that
they could then review this list and decide which groups they should target. Lensing
suggested they come up with a draft of the letter they are planning on mailing out, and
they could leave space to add the topics they still need to decide upon. Chappell asked
the members if it would be okay if he went ahead and prepared the draft of this letter
before the next day's meeting, which everyone agreed was fine. The Commission
reviewed the memo from Karr that listed various suggestions for publicizing this public
session. Majority expressed interest in a guest editorial, the city website, posters and
Charter Review Commission
October 26, 2004
Page 3
information in City building and on buses, and a press release. Members wanted to
continue the discussion relative to radio programs, and neighborhood association
meetings. Sueppel asked Karr to report back to the Commission on which of these forms
would be best for them to utilize.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Karr asked the members if they wanted to schedule December meeting dates. Chappell
said that lie would prefer to do this at Wednesday morning's meeting.
REVIEW CHARTER (Based on 10/12 redlined version submitted by City Attorney)
Section 3.01 Nomination — The review of the Charter started with this section. Sueppel
asked if anyone had any comments on either A or B of this section. Davidsen asked for
clarification on what is required by state law.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 3.01 Nomination, A & B, as redlined;
seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 3.02 Primary Election — (TAPE ENDS) Kubby stated that some of the things
that are in the handout she gave members (October 26 Different voting systems) may
eliminate the primary, if the members were interested in this issue. Sueppel asked if
anyone was interested in this, and Kubby asked that members be given time to review her
research. Members stated that they would like to HOLD Section 3.02 until they have
time to review the material distributed by Kubby.
Section 3.03 Regular City Election — Sueppel stated that A is one of the major issues
that still need to be decided upon. He asked if anyone wanted to TA 3.03 B, to which
Chappell stated that he felt they should wait and do 3.03 as a whole. Kubby asked if they
couldn't have this discussion now, and the members all agreed. Kubby started the
discussion with the topic of voter confusion, and how difficult it is for people to be
educated each time they vote. The issue of districts and at -large seats was also discussed,
with lengthy discussion about whether or not citizens utilize the Council Member for
their district, and whether they even know who their representative is. Novick gave the
members some statistics on numbers of voters, and how many voted for the district seat
and how many voted for that specific district seat. She noted that it seemed that voters
were either confused as to who all they could vote for, or they just didn't care to vote.
Discussion turned to at -large seats versus district seats, and the perceptions of the citizens
with different types of representation. Rowat stated that he still favor the current 4/3
makeup of Council members. (Dilkes arrived) As discussion continued, Sueppel asked
the members if they were interested in considering a change in the way district council
members are elected in the general election. Kubby stated that yes, she would be
interested. Chappell noted that he feels this should be one of the issues for their
December I" session. Lensing agreed, stating that she could be persuaded either way on
this issue. Davidsen stated that the original intent of this was to have district
representation that people in a specific district would know, and that this representative
would also have the interest of the city at- large. Sueppel noted that there is a legal issue
Charter Review Commission
October 26, 2004
Page 4
regarding making all seats at- large, as federal courts do not like this. Sueppel asked the
members if they wanted to defer this issue until after the December 1st session. Five
members agreed that this should be one of the topics for the December 1st session.
Section 4.01 Appointments; qualifications — Sueppel asked if there was discussion on
this section.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 4.01 as written; seconded by Chappell.
Motion carried 7 -0 (Davidsen out of room; Green absent).
Section 4.02 Accountability; removal — Sueppel asked if there was discussion on this
section. Kubby noted that they had TA'd this section originally.
MOTION: Lensing moved to TA Section 4.02, both A and B, as written; seconded
by Novick. Motion carried 7 -0 (Davidsen out of room; Green absent).
Section 4.03 Absence; disability of City Manager — Kubby asked the members if they
remembered what the issue was in previous discussions, whether it was regarding
Council involvement, and also what is considered a "temporary absence." Karr stated
that the Assistant City Manager fills in for the City Manager in case of absence, but that
to date this has not been an issue. Dilkes stated that if both the City Manager and
Assistant City Manager were gone, the City Manager would most likely appoint the
Finance Director, in his absence.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 4.03 as written; seconded by Chappell.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 4.04 Duties of City Manager — Dilkes noted that this is the section she will be
modifying due to the Commission's change in the Police Chief appointment wording.
She stated she is considering adding it to A. 3.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 4.04, A and B, subject to the change that
will be proposed on the Police Chief change, as amended; Davidsen seconded.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 4.05 Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts —
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 4.05 as written; seconded by Rowat.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 5.01 Establishment — Davidsen noted that the members had TA'd this section
originally, with no changes. Sueppel agreed. Discussion turned to Section 5.02
Appointment; Removal. Sueppel asked Dilkes to explain the changes in this section.
Dilkes stated that her memo of 10/25/04 explains why the changes were made, and how
the changes relate to State laws and codes. (TAPE ENDS) "Just cause" versus "at will"
Charter Review Commission
October 26, 2004
Page 5
was discussed. Sueppel then turned the discussion to Section 5.03 Rules, and asked
Dilkes for further detail on the "open records" issue, where she noted additional
discussion was necessary. Dilkes stated that records are maintained at the staff level, not
the Commission level. Therefore, she questions the addition of "and open records" to
5.03 A. The discussion turned to how many various Boards and Commissions this would
effect, and how their by -laws would reflect it. It was noted that the members TA'd this
section, with "and open records," the first time through. Sueppel discussed having this
stated, in order to clarify the state law. Dilkes stated that by -laws deal with meetings, and
not records. Chappell asked if board members are told that their notes are considered
open records, and discussion continued briefly on this topic.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to TA Section 5.01 as written; Section 5.02 as redlined;
and Section 5.03 as redlined; seconded by Novick. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green
absent).
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Rowat. Meeting
adjourned at 5:03 PM.
MINUTES FINAL /APPROVED
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Kevin Werner,
Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing, William Sueppel, Chair; with Naomi Novick and Nate
Green arriving at 7:05 AM; and Green leaving at 8:45 AM, Lensing at 9:05 AM
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26 2004
There were no minutes to approve.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
MEETING SCHEDULE
The following meetings were added to the schedule:
Wednesday, December 8, 7 -9 AM
Monday, December 13, 7 -9:30 AM
Thursday, January 20, 7 PM— this meeting will be the final public hearing; Sueppel
suggested they hold a meeting directly after the public hearing. Karr asked the members
if they wanted this public hearing televised, and it was agreed that the public hearing
portion of that evening would be televised.
DECEMBER I INPUT SESSION
Chappell presented the members with a draft community process letter they discussed at
yesterday's meeting. Sueppel stated that he really liked the letter; however, in the 4'h
paragraph, he thinks it should be clear that all groups will be meeting that same night, and
not at a series of meetings over several nights. Kubby and Davidsen noted that the date
and time of the meeting is only mentioned once, at the top, and should be mentioned
again somewhere in the body of the letter. Members agreed with Sueppel on the 2 "a
sentence of the 3`a paragraph, that this doesn't need to be in the letter. "Though" will be
taken out of the next sentence, to make this read better. Novick questioned the group
time limits, and questioned if they shouldn't cut these times back to 20 minutes.
Members agreed that they needed to be somewhat flexible in this area, as public input
could vary. It was decided to put 25 minutes. At the end of that sentence, where it says
"...with Commission members facilitating the discussion and taking notes," members
agreed to delete. Kubby stated that she feels they should have an end time for this
session, so those wanting to attend will know it is from 5:30 PM to 8:00 PM. Rowat
noted that the reason they did not have an end time previously was in case they had such
a small crowd that they could leave before the ending time. Discussion ensued on
Charter Review Commission
October 27, 2004
Page 2
whether or not there should be an end time. Agreement was made to no end time.
Davidsen stated that the 1st sentence of the last paragraph needed revising. She suggested
taking out ", facilitation, adequate time, ". Sueppel suggested they add to the 4th
paragraph something after the 2 "d sentence, such as "The Commission is planning on a
meeting lasting approximately 2 to 2 % hours total time." Dilkes suggested wording of
"The meeting will end no later than 8:00 PM." Karr noted that they need to remember
that some people will show up midway through a meeting, thinking that there is still an
hour or so left. Green suggested they remove the wording "After being divided into
groups," from the 4th paragraph, and members agreed with this suggestion. Sueppel
suggested the wording, "Each group will spend 25 minutes discussing one of the four
specific issues, followed immediately by a 25- minute discussion of each of the remaining
issues." Dilkes suggested, "Each group will spend 25 minutes discussing each of the four
specific issues." Discussion ensued, and it was agreed to use the wording "Each group
will spend 25 minutes discussing one of the four specific issues." And then continuing
on, and taking out "with Commission members again facilitating." Kubby stated that
they should add to the beginning of the letter "The format of the December 1"
Community Discussion" to get the date into the text of the letter, and clarify that this is a
one -night deal. Novick stated that in the 3`d paragraph, last sentence, where is says "..and
encourages your organization to be a part of this public discussion" that this should
probably say "members" instead of organization. Discussion ensued about whether or
not they would want all members, orjust a representative from each group. Members
agreed that they want all members to attend. Novick also suggested that this letter say
something about "please give this information to all of your members" so these groups
will spread the word among their members. Sueppel suggested the wording "The Charter
Review Commission invites and encourages members of your organization to be a part of
this public discussion. Would you please disseminate this information to your members,"
or something to this effect. Novick stated that they should take this information out of
the end of the letter, as it is more important in the beginning. Novick stated that this
needs to be a one -page letter, and they need to take something out in order to leave room
for the four bulleted issues. Dilkes suggested removing the 2nd sentence in the last
paragraph, and members agreed. Kubby suggested adding a P.S. that talks about the
"please disseminate this information to your members" and having it stand out. In the 4th
paragraph it was decided to say "the group will discuss" instead of "the group will be
asked to...'; and also removing the wording there on "with Commission members again
facilitating." Sueppel suggested deleting "As you know," from the first sentence of the
letter, and members agreed, as they are attempting to cut the wording down somewhat.
Novick suggested also removing "to the same." at the end of that sentence, and Sueppel
followed with also deleting "and propose amendments" as their task is to review. It was
then suggested that the last sentence of the 1st paragraph read "Several potential changes
have been discussed." In the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, it was decided to
eliminate the word "substantive." Sueppel then suggested that the 3rd paragraph be
completely changed, leaving only the sentence "The Charter Review Commission invites
and encourages your organization to be apart of this public discussion ", coming directly
after the bulleted topics; and then adding the P.S. as Kubby suggested. Also decided
Charter Review Commission
October 27, 2004
Page 3
upon was "divided into groups" instead of saying a specific number of groups. (TAPE
ENDS) Karr will make the stated changes to the letter.
Karr stated that the members now needed to decide what groups and organizations they
wanted to send this letter to. She was able to obtain the Library's list, and there are 42
pages of groups, 12 on a page. Sueppel suggested they appoint a committee of two or
three members to review this list, and to report back at the November 1 meeting with
recommendations. Lensing, Novick, and Davidsen stated they would do this. Kubby
noted that this into is also on -line at the Library web site, in case any members wanted to
review this information. (BREAK)
REVIEW CHARTER (Based on 10/12 redlined version submitted by City Attorney)
Sueppel suggested they start with Article 6 and then move through Article 8, as those
should both go fairly quickly. If time allows, they can then start on Article 7 today.
Between November 1 and November 8, he would like Dilkes to do a new redline copy of
the Charter, in order to be ready for the members at the November 8 meeting. At the
November 8 meeting, he would like for them to identify the four issues for the December
I public hearing.
Dilkes first explained to the members her 10/25 memo (Proposed Changes to the Charter)
and specifically noted Section 2.11A and her recommendation to bring this section in line
with the State code. The Commission agreed and Dilkes will make the necessary
changes to the new redline draft.
Section 6.01 Limitations on the Amount of Campaign Contributions and Section
6.02 Disclosure of Contributions and Expenditures— Novick stated that she feels 6.02
is poorly written, and would like this rewritten and clarified. Discussion ensued about
how this section could be worded for more clarity. Sueppel suggested saying "The
Council, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring the disclosure of the amount,
source, and kind of contributions received, and expenditures made by..." Removing the
wording "immediately before and after each regular, special, primary, or run -off
election," was agreed upon by the members.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 6.01 as written; seconded by Davidsen.
Motion carried 9 -0.
MOTION: Green moved to TA Section 6.02 as verbally amended; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 9 -0.
Section 6.03 Definitions — Kubby asked for clarification on the change in this section,
and Dilkes gave some examples.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 6.03 as redlined; seconded by Lensing.
Motion carried 9 -0.
Charter Review Commission
October 27, 2004
Page 4
Section 6.04 Violations — There was no further discussion on this section.
MOTION: Novick moved to TA Section 6.04 as written; seconded by Davidsen.
Motion carried 9 -0.
Section 8.01 Charter Amendments — Dilkes stated that the changes in this section, in A,
B and C, are all aimed at making this section mirror the State code. The discussion
turned towards having some type of guide or appendix to go along with the Charter,
which would show references to State code, etc. Kubby stated that she feels it is
important to keep the 10% signature spelled out in the wording of this section, as well as
adding the State code wording, and discussion continued on this issue.
MOTION: Rowat moved to TA Section 8.01 as redlined; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 9 -0.
Section 8.02 Charter Review Commission — Members noted that there were no changes
made to this section; however, they did not TA this originally due to several issues that
had been raised. Discussion ensued regarding the process of this Commission presenting
or recommending amendments to the City Council. (TAPE ENDS) Several suggestions
were made, and the members opted to HOLD on Section 8.02 until Dilkes makes
changes to the wording, as discussed.
Section 7.01A Authority — Dilkes gave a brief explanation of the changes in this section,
explaining why measure was used in place of ordinance.
MOTION: Novick moved to TA Section 7.01A as redlined; seconded by Lensing.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 7.01B Limitations — Discussion was held on Q) of this Section, with members
deciding to change the wording to read "Amendments affecting the City Zoning
Ordinance or the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, including District Plan
maps." The redlined sections were also reviewed and agreed to.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 7.01B as amended, and C, D, and E as
redlined; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green absent).
Section 7.02 Commencement of Proceedings; Affidavit — Members agreed to redlined
version for A, and noted City Clerk needing capitalized in B.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to TA Section 7.02 A and B as redlined; seconded by
Kubby. Motion carried 7 -0 (Green and Lensing absent).
Section 7.03 Petitions; Revocation of Signatures — Dilkes gave a brief explanation of
the redlined version.
Charter Review Commission
October 27, 2004
Page 5
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 7.03 A thru F as redlined; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 7 -0 (Green and Lensing absent).
Section 7.04 Procedure After Filing — Members discussed Section 7.04, noting that C
had substantial changes. Dilkes briefly explained the need to change this wording to
include "writ of certiorari ".
MOTION: Davidsen moved to TA Section 7.04 A thru D as redlined; Novick
seconded. Motion carried 7 -0 (Green and Lensing absent). (TAPE ENDS)
ADJOURNMENT
Sueppel stated that they would begin the next meeting by reviewing Section 7.05 Action
on Petitions.
MOTION: Kubby moved to adjourn; seconded by Davidsen. Meeting adjourned at
9:25 AM.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2004 -3:00 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing, Nate
Green, Naomi Novick, William Sueppel, Chair; and Penny Davidsen arriving at 3:08 PM
Members Absent: Kevin Werner
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26 and October 27, 2004
Novick noted that on the October 26 minutes, page 4, tinder Section 4.03, there is a typo.
It should read "manager," not "manger."
MOTION: Lensing moved to accept the minutes of October 26, 2004, with the
above correction; seconded by Novick. Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the October 27, 2004, minutes as submitted;
seconded by Kubby. Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Sueppel asked if anyone had any conflicts with the latest schedule. Green noted that he
would have to leave early on November 9.
DECEMBER 1 COMMUNITY PROCESS SESSION
Sueppel started the discussion with handout CR48, which Karr drafted from Chappell's
draft, and decisions made at the last meeting. Sueppel noted that they also have handout
CR49, which is Novick's draft of the letter they plan to send to organizations, regarding
the December I public session. Novick stated that after reading over her draft, she would
like to add "by the Commission" to the end of paragraph 1; and on the next lines "The
issues to be discussed on December 1 by the community include these issues." Davidsen
noted that she would prefer the wording "the members of the Commission" versus saying
"we" in the second to last sentence of the letter. Sueppel noted that Novick's version no
longer had the P.S. on it, and Kubby noted they could still put it back in. Karr stated that
her suggestion would be to come up with the bulleted issues for the letter, before they go
any further, and then they can work on the layout of the letter. Rowat questioned the
third paragraph, where it states, "Each group will spend twenty -five minutes..." and
suggested they put "...will spend up to twenty -five minutes..." instead. The members
Charter Review Commission
November 1, 2004
Page 2
briefly discussed their next move, and decided they would complete the second review of
the Charter, before deciding the issues for the December 1 public session.
CHARTER REVIEW
The review picked up at Section 7.05 Action on Petitions A. Action by council.
Chappell asked for a reminder on why the sentence "The Council shall submit to the
voters..." is being removed. Dilkes stated that this was done by a motion early on in the
review process. It was felt to be a misplaced sentence since 7.04 addresses this issue.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to TA Section 7.05 A as redlined; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
Section 7.05 B. Submission to voters, (1) Initiative — Dilkes explained the changes to
this section, and referred to the timeline that members had received earlier.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 7.05 B (1) as redlined; seconded by Novick.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
Dilkes next explained the changes made to Section 7.05 B (2) Referendum. Novick
asked for clarification of the 120 -day period. Kubby then asked for more clarification on
the period, as well.
MOTION: Chappell moved to TA Section 7.05 B (2) as redlined; seconded by
Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
Section 7.05 C Ballot — there was no further discussion on this section, as the only
changes were "ordinance" to "measure."
MOTION: Novick moved to TA Section 7.05 C as redlined; seconded by Davidsen.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
Section 7.06 Results of Election, A. Initiative and B. Referendum — There was no
further discussion on this Section.
MOTION: Novick moved to TA Section 7.06, both A and B, as redlined; seconded
by Chappell. Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
Section 7.07 Prohibition on Establisliment of Stricter Conditions or Requirements —
There was no further discussion.
MOTION: Davidsen moved to TA Section 7.07 as redlined; seconded by Chappell.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent)
Sueppel noted that this concluded the second review of the City Charter. Davidsen asked
for a clarification on 7.01, under B. Limitations, (Io — Public improvements subsequent
Charter Review Commission
November 1, 2004
Page 3
to City Council action to authorize acquisition of property, the acquisition of property or
notice to bidders, whichever..." Davidsen stated that this does not make sense to her,
and that perhaps a comma after "...property, the acquisition of property..." would make
the three items stand out. Discussion ensued regarding acquisition of property by the
City, and Dilkes explained the City process. Dilkes suggested: "...City Council action to
authorize acquisition of property FOR such public improvement." Sueppel gave the
following suggestion: "Public improvements, subsequent to City Council action to
authorize acquisition of property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that
public improvement" Dilkes will finalize this wording.
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA 7.01 as amended; seconded by Davidsen. Motion
carried 8 -0 (Werner absent):
ISSUES FOR DECEMBER 1 COMMUNITY PROCESS
Sueppel reviewed the "Pending Charter Review Issues" memo from Dilkes and Karr, and
asked members to bring up any other issues they may have. Under Section 2.02 Division
into Council Districts, the members had questioned the number of council districts.
Also questioned was the issue of the mayor being elected, under Section 2.06 Mayor.
Karr noted that this list is from the Commission's minutes, and is made up of items the
members had red flagged during their review process. The next issue listed was primary
elections, from Section 3.02 Primary Election. It was noted that the members had not
TA'd 3.02 yet as they were to review Kubby's handout on elections. Sueppel asked the
members if they were interested in pursuing a change to the election process. Kubby
gave a quick overview of her election research, and answered members' questions.
(TAPE ENDS) Dilkes noted her concerns about these other systems, and stated that the
State code is very specific about city elections. Kubby stated that for the public record,
she would like to note that these issues (a change in the election process) are here, and
that as communities change, people have different needs in how democracy works. She
stated that there are always improvements to how things are done, in order to garner
greater public participation. Sueppel asked if anyone was interested in working with
Kubby on this issue, and Kubby stated that if State law precludes a change in the election
process, then the changes need to be made at the State level first.
MOTION: Lensing moved to TA Section 2.02 and Section 2.06 for the December 1
public session; seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
The discussion turned to Section 3.03 Regular City Election next. Green suggested
they combine the two issues of number of districts and how Council members are elected.
Members discussed this further, with the majority agreeing that these two issues should
be discussed together. Members continued to give their opinions on what should be
discussed. Kubby moved that the following be on the letter for the December I public
session: number of districts and election of council members; election of mayor;
appointment of police chief by council; and a `catch all' group. Discussion continued,
with the members trying to decide the major issues they want for public discussion.
Charter Review Commission
November 1, 2004
Page 4
Dilkes noted that she will have a new redlined version to the members, and that this
version will be available at the public session as well.
Kubby withdrew her original motion and moved to make the following the December 1
public session issues: election of mayor and district seats to be discussed in small
groups; and a large group for the catch all issues. Karr noted that members need to think
about finalizing their letter, and that giving people a target to respond to has been an issue
with the members since the first public hearing. She also suggested they put some type
of contact information. (TAPE ENDS)
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the above issues; seconded by Chappell.
Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
Discussion continued on the December I public process, and the letter that the
Commission is planning to mail out to organizations in the community. Several members
want to make sure that some type of explanatory sentences are included with the above -
named issues, so the people receiving the letter have a better understanding of just what
will be discussed. Karr will have a new draft of the letter ready for the November 8
meeting, with input from Chappell on the explanation for election of Mayor, and Dilkes
will have a new redlined version of the Charter for members.
CHARTER REVIEW
The members decided to go back to TA the remaining sections that they had previously
put on hold.
MOTION Chappell moved to TA Section 3.02 Primary Election as written;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner absent).
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 2.01 Composition and Section 2.02 Division
into Council Districts as written; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Werner
absent).
MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 2.06 Mayor as written; seconded by
Davidsen. Motion carried 7 -1; Chappell voting the negative (Werner absent).
ADJOURNMENT
Sueppel asked the members to read over the Charter now that they have reviewed it
twice, and to bring up any issues they wish to discuss, at the next meeting.
MOTION: Kubby moved to adjourn the nneeting; seconded by Green. Meeting
adjourned at 5:10 PM.
MINUTES FINAL
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 Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2004
MOTION: Lensing moved 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." He asked if this should read "each" instead of "hot ])." The
members agreed to change this to "each." ( Rowat arrived at 7:25 AM) Sueppel quickly
reviewed the suggested changes to the letter.
MOTION: Kubby 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. 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
(48IMU). Sueppel asked that the City Manager, 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.
Publici
Members next discussed what type of publicity they want to use for the December 1
public session. Posters on city buses and Cambus; handouts at City Hall and Public
Library; a press release /media release will be done by Karr; guest editorial in the Sunday,
November 28'h, 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 he 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. Karr 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 I 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 I lrl' 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. [Note: Hereafter she
will be participating via telephone conference.]
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 all appendix is still strong, especially in light of the changes made to the Charter.
Chatter Review Commission
November 8, 2004
Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Chappell moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Rowat. Meeting
adjourned at 8:55 AM.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004 — 3:00 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerphone), Nate Green, Naomi Novick, William Sueppel, Chair; and Vicki Lensing
(arrived at 3:07 PM); Lynn Rowat (arrived at 3:10 PM)
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2004
Davidsen noted that on page 4, under "Old Business," at the end of the first paragraph,
she would like to add something to the effect of, "Hereafter she will be contacted via
telephone conference." The members agreed. Novick noted that on page 2, under
"Direct Mail ", 5 1 line down, the "is" after Doser needs to be eliminated; 7'h line down,
"manger" should be "manager'; and under "Publicity ", 3`d line, "handouts" should be
"posters." The members agreed with these corrections, as well.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the minutes of November 8, 2004, as amended
above; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 8 -0 ( Rowat absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sueppel asked if everyone had received the letter from Jay Honohan, via email. Some
members had not; Karr made copies for the members. Sueppel noted that Davidsen
would need to have copies mailed to her.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the correspondence from Jay Honohan of the
Senior Center; seconded by Green. Motion carried 9 -0.
DECEMBER 1 COMMUNITY PROCESS SESSION
Publicity — Sueppel stated he would go through the list to see what the status of each
item is. Posters on City buses — Karr noted they are working on this at the present time.
Handouts at City Hall and Public Library Information desks — Karr stated these
would be available tomorrow (Wednesday, 11/17/04). Davidsen asked if Karr would
mail her this information, as well. Press Release — Karr noted that this would be
prepared once they have all the material needed. Guest Editorial — members discussed
the draft they received on this. Kubby noted that she has one suggestion. In the 3`d
paragraph, where it talks about district candidates and the primary, she would like this to
be more explicit. Her suggestion is: (insert the following words) Voted or by district
voters (in the first sentence); Our district candidates are winnowed down to two per
district at a primary election, voted on by district voters, if more than two seek a specific
district seat. She also noted that perhaps the term "city election" could be changed to
"general election." Karr clarified the change: "regular" will be inserted before "City
Charter Review Commission
November 16, 2004
Page 2
election" in line 3 and line 4 of the 3`d paragraph. Kubby stated that by adding
"November election" it would be even more clear for people. Karr asked if they wanted
"primary" to also have "October." The members agreed to these changes. Kubby also
suggested adding a final line that would really grab people's attention. She suggested:
It's your charter. Let your voice be heard. Members discussed this, and questioned voice
versus voices. They decided to go with the plural. Sueppel noted that the Daily Iowan
would not be publishing during the entire week of Thanksgiving, so they need to keep
this in mind when meeting deadlines. He also noted that they needed to decide which
newspaper they would publish the guest editorial in, either the Gazette or the Press -
Citizen. It was decided to publish in the Press - Citizen for the Sunday issue; and the
Daily Iowan's Monday the 29"' issue. Novick stated that a couple of the members could
submit letters to the editor to the other newspapers. It was decided that Novick would
send a letter to the Gazette; and Green will take the Daily Iowan. They will use the
above - mentioned guest editorial as their basis. Davidsen asked to have copies of these
items, as well, and Karr will make sure she has copies of all the documents mentioned. It
was noted that a picture needs to be taken of Sueppel, and Karr stated she would have the
City photographer take this picture on Thursday, as Sueppel will be in his office. City
Website — Karr noted that this has been updated with the latest redlined version of the
Charter, and the December 1 letter and notice. Radio programs — Kubby reported that
WSUI's Iowa Talks is now statewide, versus regional, so this piece would not work here.
However, Kubby noted they would like to do a 5- minute news piece and a longer
weekend item with a studio interview. Kubby noted that this interview can be done at
any time, and then it will be aired on a particular weekend. She just needs to contact
WSUI and finalize the plans. Kubby will work on this. Lensing stated that she would
work with Kubby on this, and they will report back to the members. Kubby noted that
their message will be based on the guest editorial. Lensing stated that she is to contact
Brent about this at KXIC, but that the interview will be basically the same as the radio
station, in that the interview can be done either live, or tape beforehand. She needs to
contact him for further clarification. Werner stated that he would do the KXIC interview,
and Rowat also volunteered to work with him. Werner stated he would contact Brent to
set this up. They will let Karr know once these interviews are arranged so information
can be shared with the Commission. Cable television — Karr noted that a decision has not
been made on this yet.
Facilitator information — Karr reported that the December 1 public session, being held
at the Public Library, will be in Meeting Room A, which is large, and several smaller
rooms around it, where they can have their smaller group sessions. She asked the
members if they wanted a typed sheet with consistent information for each
facilitator /scribe and their group. The members discussed this briefly, and Kubby stated
she world work on coming up with a 1 -page sheet for the facilitators to use. Karr noted
that if Kubby wants to get this in the packet for the next Charter Review meeting, then it
will need to be done by Thursday morning. Kubby noted that she may not have it done
by then, but will have it ready for the next meeting, which is November 22. Kubby's
draft will be reviewed at the next meeting. Novick noted that she does have to leave at
7:30 PM from the December I public session, and wanted to remind the members of this.
Charter Review Commission
November 16, 2004
Page 3
(TAPE ENDS)
MEETING SCHEDULE
Lensing asked what the agenda was going to be at the November 22 "d meeting. Sueppel
stated it would be an update on the publicity, and a review of the facilitator sheet that
Kubby will be preparing. Discussion began on reducing the length of this next meeting
as most issues have been cleared up. It was decided to start the meeting at 8:00 AM,
instead of 7:00 AM.
A brief discussion ensued, regarding the public session on December 1. It was decided
that they would have the participants count off to form groups, and to have the same
facilitator /scribe discuss all issues with their group, instead of changing groups. It was
decided by the group to see how many people show up for the public session, before they
make any specific recommendations on how the meeting and group discussions should be
run.
ADJOURNMENT
Kubby motioned to adjourn the meeting at 4:00 PM; seconded by Chappell. Motion
carried 9 -0.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2004 — 8:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
FINAL
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerphone), Nate Green, Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing, and William Sueppel, Chair
Members Absent: Lynn Rowat
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 8:05 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16,200
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the minutes of November 16, 2004, as
submitted; seconded by Davidsen. Motion carried 8 -0 ( Rowat absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
DECEMBER 1 COMMUNITY PROCESS SESSION
Sueppel asked for updates on the publicity for the upcoming session. Karr reported that
there were 42 posters put on City buses; 36 posters on Cambus vehicles; and 250
handouts left with the information desks at both City Hall and the Public Library, the
Senior Center, and with Parks and Recreation. Karr then noted that handout CR62 is the
press release that was sent to all media, and posted on the website as well. Karr then
discussed the guest editorial, and stated that the Press - Citizen was unable to run
Sueppel's guest editorial on Sunday, but after emailing members the consensus was that
the editorial would be in the Saturday edition. Green is working on the submission for
the Daily Iowa, and Novick's letter submitted to the Gazette was distributed to members.
The City website, Karr noted, has all of this information on it, and referred to handout
CR64 for the latest. As for cable TV, Karr noted that they will run little "fillers" before
the December 1 public session, but that they also have a new "toy," where someone could
tape a short interview, and then the cable staff will put this on an interactive database.
This could be done before the December 1 hearing, or even done after the hearing. A
brief discussion ensued about how this interactive program works. Davidsen suggested
that this would be better served if done after the hearing, to help keep the Charter
foremost in citizen's minds. The members agreed to put the interactive program into use
after the December I session. Kubby reported that she and Lensing were interviewed by
WSUI, and there are to be two pieces — a weekend piece on Saturday; and then a 5-
minute piece would also be done periodically. Werner reported that he left KXIC a
voicemail but that he has not received a response. He will attempt to contact him again.
Charter Review Commission
November 22, 2004
Page 2
Next, the facilitator information sheet that Kubby prepared, handout CR65, was
reviewed. Davidsen asked how topics, aside from what is listed here, would be
addressed, as there are bound to be people at the hearing who want to ask these things.
Sueppel stated that the large group is where the miscellaneous items will be addressed.
Novick stated that she questions the members discussing "other voting systems." She
feels they should take out any references to other voting systems. Sueppel stated that
perhaps adding "possibility of discussing...." may help, but that he agrees with Novick in
that they should remove this. He then noted that since this sheet is for the members use
only, they could just make a notation to this effect.
Karr quickly reviewed the set -up for the December I" hearing, noting that they will have
meeting room A, as well as two adjoining rooms if needed for smaller groups; four flip
charts; the handouts (red -line version of Charter); and name tags were suggested. It was
further suggested that the nametags be pre - numbered for ease in breaking into small
groups. Novick stated that she went through the latest redlined version of the Charter,
and added some commas and semi - colons to aid in the Charter reading "more smoothly,"
and she asked for the members' comments on this. She would like to give this to Dilkes
for review. Sueppel stated that Novick should give this to Dilkes, but asked that Dilkes
hold on to this until they are ready to incorporate more changes, and do this all at once.
The members agreed. Kubby suggested they have a sign -in sheet, and also suggested
they use this to contact interested citizens about the January hearing. Novick asked if the
high schools in the area were invited to the December I session. The members agreed to
have Karr send the letter, regarding the session, to all three high schools.
MEETING SCHEDULE
There were no changes to the schedule at this time. Novick asked if the members wanted
to change the December 8 meeting to 8:00 AM (instead of 7:00), but members felt that
with this being the first meeting after the December I" public session, they may need the
time to review how the session went.
REVIEW CHARTER
Nothing at this time.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Chappell moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Novick. Meeting
adjourned at 8:40 AM.
MINUTES FINAL
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 comment. 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 three times.
INTRODUCTION OF CI4ARTER 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 (Attachment # 3), 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 term, 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 lie 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 government 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 run for a third of the town, but then
have to run 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.
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 4
Sueppel noted that their group (Attachment # 4) consensus appears to be the opposite.
Their issues were:
• 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 she 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 dilutes the redress that the citizens
have, as it means it is much easier for the city government to keep something from being
Charter Review Commission
December t, 2004
Page 5
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.
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 lie 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 hitn 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, he 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 Coma, 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 government. 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 he feels two terms should be it. Under Section 7.03, Eligibility, lie
asked if the Commission has discussed "raising this bar" or not, as lie 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 lie 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
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 6
the number of districts, and lie 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.
Garry Klein next spoke to the Commission. He thanked the Commission, and noted that
the small groups concept was a good idea. I-Ie 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 lie 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.
Ann 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.
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 7
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
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 tip 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.
Adjournment 7:45 PM
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 8
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.
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 9
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?
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 10
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
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 11
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
Cc:Charte rReviewCommission /communityaltachment
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 12
ATTACHMENT #3
(Notes from Chappell/Novick Group)
Mayo''
This group acknowledged that electing a Mayor in the City Election rather than by the Council
would be more democratic. However, having a Mayor with City government experience was
more important. One person's example was the complicated City budget that is discussed at the
beginning of a term.
Other comments: Mayor reflects the general tenor of the Council. Council Members select a
Mayor who is compatible and a good leader. Council Members should be willing to accept the
responsibility of Mayor. A Mayor should be limited to two consecutive 2 -year terms. There was
general agreement on this term limit.
District Seats
There was some confusion about the election of district Council Members by citywide voters.
There was a good discussion of the district Council Members elected by district voters only, but
there wasn't a real agreement to change the current system.
A change from 3 city districts to 4 districts created a split that was around half the group on each
side.
Other comments: District Council Members should be aware of district issues and bring them to
Council. Are they supposed to representjust that district? Neighborhood Associations also bring
district issues to the attention of the Council Members.
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 13
ATTACHMENT # 4 (page 1 of 2)
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 person's 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 two's meetings would give the council members a good sense of who
could lead the city as mayor.
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 14
ATTACHMENT # 4 (page 2 of 2)
NOTES ON GROUP FOUR DISCUSSION
OF MAJOR ISSUES
B. DISTRICTS
Number at large and by district.
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.
MINUTES APPROVED
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2004 — 7:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerphone), Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing, and William Sueppel, Chair
Members Absent: Nate Green, Lynn Rowat
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:05 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, and DECEMBER 1, 2004
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the minutes of November 22, 2004, as
submitted; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 7 -0 (Green, Rowat absent).
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the minutes of December 1, 2004, as submitted
(discussion to follow); seconded by Kubby. Motion carried 7 -0 (Green, Rowat
absent).
Novick questioned Page 3, the second paragraph, where her presentation at the
community process is noted. She questioned the last bulleted item, and stated that she
feels the way it is written up, it sounds like a "conclusion." She also questioned the
notation to neighborhood associations and their role in the community. Chappell stated
that lie was fine with these general descriptions of what their group brought up. After a
brief discussion among the members, Novick agreed to keep the minutes as written.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sueppel noted that the members had received a letter from Carol deProsse; another from
John Neff; and one from Jay Honohan as well.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept correspondence; seconded by Chappell. Motion
carried 7 -0 (Green, Rowat absent).
Sueppel recognized two visitors at the meeting. John McDonald introduced himself to
the Commission. He stated lie would submit his ideas in writing. The other visitor was a
reporter from the U of L Kubby noted that John was the Chair of the last Charter Review
Commission.
REVIEW DECEMBER 1 COMMUNITY PROCESS SESSION
Davidsen asked for a brief summary from one of the members on how they felt the public
process went on December 1. Sueppel stated that lie has had very positive feedback on
the type of meeting they had, and he thanked Kubby for her persistence in having this
Charter Review Commission
December 8, 2004
Page 2
format. Kubby noted that one comment that really intrigued her was made by John
Balmer, where he stated lie would be "disenfranchised" if he was not able to vote for all
of the districts.
REVIEW CHARTER
Sueppel noted that with both Green and Rowat absent, he would be reluctant to make any
final decisions today. He asked the members how they felt about this. It was decided
that the members would just discuss today, and would hold off on making any specific
decisions until all nine members are present. Karr noted that the January 20 date, for the
next public hearing, is the same night as the Chamber's Annual Dinner.
The first issue to be discussed was whether the voters should elect the mayor, or stay as is
— elected by the other members of the council. He asked the members for their
discussions on the strong mayor versus weak mayor concept. Discussion continued oil
the powers of the mayor, and whether or not these powers should change, and also the
perceptions of these powers. Sueppel stated that perhaps the Commission should send a
report to the City Council, outlining some of the concerns the public has voiced in this
area. Novick stated that a comment made by John Neff struck her as unusual, in that he
states that the city manager position has too much power, and that it is due in pail to the
city council allowing it. Davidsen stated that if these types of things are occurring, she
would like to see specific incidents to show this. Sueppel then asked each member to
give their view on whether or not they wish to pursue a change to the mayoral position —
how elected. The majority of members, Davidsen, Novick, Werner, Lensing, and
Sueppel, were not interested in pursuing a change in this area. Chappell and Kubby were
both for a directly elected mayor, by the voters. The issue of term limits was raised, as
well. It was decided that this issue would be brought up at a later discussion, after the
members discuss the three main issues at hand.
The second and third issues, number of representatives elected at large and number of
representatives elected by district. Currently it is 4 at -large and 3 district seats. Lensing
noted that her group, at the 12/1 public discussion, was for a 4 district /3 at -large split on
city council members. (TAPE ENDS) Kubby noted the topic of voter confusion, and she
feels this is an important issue. She feels they should "un- confuse" the system so the
citizens can understand how their council members are elected. Sueppel stated that the
question, as he sees it, is, "Are we comfortable as a Commission, at this stage, with
saying let's keep the 3 / 4 representation, but let's have those 3 elected within their
district ?" This, Ire states, is a potential next step for a Commission to look at. Sueppel
then noted for the record that Caroline Dieterle also showed up for public comments, and
he stated that he would like to give her a chance to speak once their discussion is done.
Discussion continued with Werner stating that his group at the public session also noted
voter confusion and the need for more education. Novick stated that she would have to
reconsider the choice of the mayor if the district representatives were elected by district
only. She stated that an at -large representative, elected by the entire city, should be the
only one eligible to be the mayor. Davidsen stated that this goes back to the leadership
Charter Review Commission
December 8, 2004
Page 3
topic, and she feels that good leadership is key. Novick further stated that she would
really like to keep the nomination by district an election at- large. Chappell stated that
this then begs the question of whether or not the mayor is then really one among equals.
Lensing noted that she does not think it's a power issue, but a perception of
representation. Sueppel asked the two people present for public comment if they would
like to speak. John McDonald stated that he was interested in listening to the discussion
today, but would submit in writing any issues he has, or will attend the next Commission
meeting.
Caroline Dieterle gave the Commission members some history on City government and
some of the major issues from past years. She asked the members to think seriously
about making some changes, and to not leave things as they are right now.
Sueppel then asked the members to give feedback and opinions on the representative
issue. Chappell stated lie is for the 4 at large /3 district seats, with pure districts, and he
wants to think further about the mayoral issue. Novick stated that she would like to do
some further reading before she makes a decision. Davidsen stated that she is still for the
4 at large /3 district seats, and will reconsider the true district representation. Kubby
stated that she is for the 4 at large /3 district seats, being true districts, and as for the
mayoral issue, she would prefer a directly elected mayor but would like to also do some
further reading on this. Lensing stated that she has even more questions now, and she
asked members for some clarification on the issues. Werner stated he is for the 4 at
large /3 district seats, but lie still has questions about true districts and the election of the
mayor. Sueppel stated that the vast majority of people he has talked with say to not elect
the mayor at- large, as it would cause conflict within the City. He said he still questions
adding a 0' district. Lensing further stated that her group at the public session brought
up the issue of compensation for Council members, and considering the work load and
time spent, she feels this is a topic they may want to think about as they make their final
decisions. Dieterle addressed the members again, asking them to consider a retention
vote for the City Manager position, as this is the seat of power within the City. (TAPE
ENDS) Sueppel noted that on the December 1 minutes, page 4 at the bottom, the word
"deludes" should be "dilutes." He also questioned the latest redline version of the
Charter, stating that under Section 2.05, they had decided to make the one long sentence
into two separate sentences. He also questioned Section 7.03 A for clarification.
MEETING SCHEDULE
The members quickly discussed the meeting schedule. The next meeting will be on
Monday, December 13. Karr will contact Green and Rowat and make sure they can
attend this meeting. She will let the members know if the time of the meeting will be
7:00 AM or not.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kubby moved to adjourn; seconded by Chappell. The meeting
adjourned at 9:05 AM.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 — 7:45 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
APPROVED
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerphone), Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing, Nate Green, Lynn Rowat, and William
Sueppel, Chair
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:45 AM.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Sueppel asked all nine members of the Commission be available for final decisions on the
Charter review process. After discussion, the meeting schedule was set up as follows:
January 6, 2005, 3:30 PM — Charter Review meeting
January 13, 2005, 7:00 PM — Public Hearing
January 14, 2005, 7:30 AM — 9:00 AM — Charter Review meeting
January 18, 2005, 7:00 PM — present Charter Review Commission summary and
recommendations to the City Council at formal meeting.
Dilkes noted that Novick had given her a copy of the Charter with some miscellaneous
corrections, but that she would like to wait until after the meeting on January 6th, where
the Commission will be making some decisions, before she updates their redline version
of the Charter.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kubby moved to adjourn; seconded by Chappell. The meeting
adjourned at 8:05 AM.
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 2005 — 3:30 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
APPROVED
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerphone), Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing, Nate Green, Lynn Rowat, and William
Sueppel, Chair
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM.
APPROVE MINUTES
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the minutes of December 8, 2004, as written;
seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 9 to 0.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the minutes of December 13, 2004, as written;
seconded by Novick. Motion carried 9 to 0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
REVIEW CHARTER
Sueppel asked if any of the members had anything new they wanted to share. Hearing
nothing new, the members decided to discuss the four main issues that they have left.
The first issue, how the mayor is elected, was discussed. Novick stated that she feels
they have a good system now, and she likes that the mayor is part of the City Council and
gets to discuss and vote as a member of the Council. Davidsen stated that she feels the
election of the mayor should stay as it is, and that the mayor could be a district
representative, if the Commission chooses to go to "true districts." Kubby stated that she
has re -read the Charter many times, as well as talked to others, and she is still in favor of
going to a directly elected mayor. Chappell stated that he also supports the idea of a
directly elected mayor. Green stated that lie originally was of the opinion that if our
system is working well that it should not be changed, but he feels there should be more
"openness" to the process. Werner stated that he likes the system as it is note, and he
feels the "first among equals" is best. Rowat stated that he feels that all voters have, in a
sense, had a chance to vote for who is going to be the mayor, by electing the Council
members. Lensing stated that she and Rowat were in the same group at the last public
hearing, and that what he stated is basically what their group felt: that if the
responsibilities of the mayor are not going to change, then leave the election of the mayor
as is. She, therefore, agrees that they should keep the system as is. The discussion then
turned to a term limit for the mayor, and Novick stated that people have been suggesting
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2005
Page 2
a limit of four years. Sueppel ended the discussion by stating that he also feels the
system works as it is, and does not want to change at this time. Lensing noted that she
would like the Commission to let the Council know that they would like to see this
process done in as open and public of a manner as possible. Dilkes noted that in the past
this process was done by secret ballot, but that process was stopped and now the Council
member's vote mast be public.
MOTION: Novick moved to "TA" Section 2.06 A, B and C-- Mayor, as written;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 6 to 3 (Green, Chappell, and Kubby voting the
negative).
The discussion then turned to term limits for the mayor. Lensing stated that she has not
changed her mind on this, but noted that members of her group at the last public hearing
did bring this up. She wants to acknowledge that some people have concerns about this
and want term limits, but that as a Commission, she felt they had decided not to address
this area. Novick stated that quite a few people feel that four years should be the limit.
MOTION: Novick moved that the mayor, who is selected from among the Council
members, hold office for no more than four years (two terms). No second. Motion
dies.
Section 2.02 Division into council districts – Kubby stated that she would favor keeping
the 4 at- large, 3 district seats. Novick stated that the original idea behind this was to
make sure that representation was evenly distributed throughout the city. She noted that
in past Charter Review Commissions, the idea of having 5 districts was discussed, in
order to spread the representation around.
MOTION: Kubby moved to "TA" Section 2.02 Division into council districts as
written; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 9 to 0.
Sueppel then turned the discussion to the "method of selecting district councilpersons.
Kubby stated that the question then that had them hesitating was: if they had true
districts and the majority of council felt that one of the district members was the best
person to be mayor, and had four or more votes to be mayor, what does that mean – is it a
good thing or not? She stated that she then tried to find some examples of this situation,
and does not feel that they would have a problem with it locally. Davidsen agreed with
Kubby's statement. Chappell noted that Ire has spoken in favor of the mayor being
directly elected by the people, and that since that idea was voted down, he feels the
system should stay as it is. The concept of voters being disenfranchised was discussed at
some length, with members giving their opinions. (TAPE ENDS)
MOTION: Section 2.01 — Composition and 3.03 — Regular city election – Kubby
moved to create language in the Charter to have the districts be true districts;
seconded by Chappell. Motion failed, 8 to 1, with Kubby voting in the positive, and
the remaining eight members voting in the negative.
Charter Review Commission
January G, 2005
Page 3
MOTION: Lensing moved to "TA" Section 2.01 and 3.03 as written; seconded by
Green. Motion carried 8 to 1; Kubby voting in the negative.
MOTION: Kubby moved to "TA" the entire Charter as amended by previous
action of the Commission (as reflected in the red -line version dated 11/3/04 and one
additional change in Section 2.05); seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 9 to 0.
MOTION: Kubby moved to authorize Dilkes to make grammatical changes as
deemed necessary in the final redline version of the Charter; Novick seconded.
Motion carried 9 to 0.
REQUEST FOR VIDEO ON DEMAND (VOD) INFORMATION
Karr explained to the members that this is a request that was in their December packet,
where the local government channel wanted to know if the Charter Commission was
interested in designating anyone on the Commission to do an interactive program with
their Infovision program. This issue had been put off during December due to the public
session that was being planned and held. Kubby suggested that they look into this from
more of an educational tool perspective. Karr will contact staff and ask they inform
Chair Sueppel of options.
PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL
Sueppel opened the discussion by asking who is going to prepare the presentation for the
City Council; what is it exactly that this person should prepare; and do they want to
include recommendations to the Council as to whether they should adopt the
recommendations by ordinance, or submit it to a vote of the people, and if they do this by
ordinance, does the Commission favor one ordinance, or perhaps more than one as some
are strictly grammatical changes, and others are things that people might want to take
issue with. Dilkes stated that her tentative opinion is that if the Council were to adopt
every change made in one ordinance, objectors could still, within 30 days, ask to have a
section of the ordinance be submitted to voters. Dilkes further stated she would need to
look at the issue in more detail.
Sueppel noted that Chappell had given the members a copy of an article from the County
News regarding San Francisco using ranked voting.
The discussion then turned to what the presentation would entail. Chappell stated that he
believes they need two documents to present to the Council. One would be the "mds and
bolts" changes that the Commission is proposing, and the second document would be
narrative -type of report, further explaining the changes and issues that the Commission
has brought up. He feels that the first document, the "nuts and bolts ", should be done by
staff (Karr & Dilkes), and the second document should be done by one of the members.
He further suggested that a Commission member do a draft, and then the Commission as
a whole wold review.
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2005
Page 4
Kubby noted the following issues that have been raised by the Commission members
during their review: the police /fire chief being approved by Council and appointed by the
City Manager; restrictions on referendum; desire to have a citizen's guide for the Charter;
and the time -frame that was presented by staff. Sueppel suggested they review the
minutes from their meetings thus far, and pull the main discussion topics from there.
Chappell stated that he feels they should pick someone on the Commission to start a
preliminary draft of this presentation. Novick suggested that Chappell do this, and
members agreed. It was decided that Kubby would work with him, as well, on this draft.
Dilkes asked for clarification on what she and Karr are to do, which is an explanation of
the actual changes that are being made, and not issues that the Commission merely
discussed. She said they would include items such as the staff time -line as it will help to
clarify the changes.
Sueppel asked when this Commission ends, and Karr noted approximately May 4, 2005.
She further stated that the Commission's "work is done" when they present their proposal
to Council, but that does not mean that they won't be asked for further information or
review. Karr then asked for clarification of the January 14Th meeting agenda. Items to be
addressed are: review public hearing of January 13, and review final reports by
Dilkes/Karr and Chappell / Kubby. It was further decided that Chappell and Kubby would
have their version of the presentation to Karr by 10:00 AM on Thursday, January 13.
Dilkes ended the discussion by asking the members if they wanted to set a public hearing
for the Council on the Charter Commission's recommendations, and whether to give
them to the voters or do this by ordinance. Majority agreed to present recommendations
only, and not request setting of a hearing.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Rowat moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Green. Meeting
adjourned at 5:13 PM.
APPROVED BY WRITTEN CONSENT
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 2005 - 7:00 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
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 called the meeting to order, and then proceeded to give some background
on what the Charter Review Commission has been doing. To date, the Commission has
met 22 times; has had two previous public hearings; and has reviewed the Charter in
detail. As a result of these meetings, and especially the meeting of January 6, 2005, in
which some final decisions were made, the Commission is preparing to present a Charter
recommendation to the City Council at their Tuesday, January 18, 2005, meeting.
Sueppel further stated that there is a red -lined version of the Charter available, either at
this evening's public hearing, or people can stop by the City Clerk's office for a copy, or
people can go the City's website at www.icgov.org /council /chailerreview.litnn.
Next Sueppel stated that at the last public hearing, in December 2004, four issues were
identified as being significant. The first issue concerns the election of the mayor.
Currently, the mayor is elected /appointed by the other members of the council.
Considerable discussion by the Charter Review Commission has taken place regarding
whether or not the voters of the city should elect the mayor, instead. Sueppel noted that it
was not a unanimous vote, but the Commission has decided not to change the mayoral
process. Another issue that arose, concerning the mayoral seat, is the number of terms
that a mayor may have. After in -depth discussions, the Commission decided that term
limits would not be appropriate, and that the Council and voters can determine this. The
third issue concerns how many people should be on the council, and what should be the
composition of the council, in terms of district seats and at -large seats. The Commission
decided to continue with seven (7) council members, four (4) of whom are elected at-
large; and three (3) of whom are elected fron districts, with each of them serving a term
of four (4) years. The final issue concerns whether or not district council members
should continue to be elected as they currently are, or if the process should change to a
"pure district" vote. Sueppel noted that again, this was not a unanimous vote, but it was
decided to keep this system as it currently is.
Sueppel stated that the Charter Review Commission is currently preparing a report to
present to the City Council at their January 18 meeting, which will give a "line by line"
discussion of why changes were made, and what the significance of these changes may
be. Sueppel then introduced the members of the Charter Review Commission to those in
attendance, before opening the public hearing.
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2005
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING:
The following individuals appeared:
John Balmer, 10 Princeton Court, thanked the Commission members for their thorough
and comprehensive review of the Charter. Balmer gave a brief history of the City
Council, stating that he was one of the first seven members of the first council, voted in
30 years ago. He stated that he agrees with the mayoral issue and the Commission's
decision to keep this as it currently is.
Derek Maurer, 1405 Oaklawn Avenue, stated that he is present tonight because he is
disappointed to hear that the Commission is not going to make any significant changes to
the Charter. He stated that he feels the community has grown sufficiently to warrant
snaking changes. He feels that with the population growth, economic growth, and the
reality of the "Corridor" point towards change. Kubby asked him if he could make one
change to the Charter to help local government maintain participation by its citizens,
what would it be. Maurer stated that a colleague of his, Becky Soglin, is also present,
and that the two of them "brainstormed" one day and they came up with some ideas for
an "ideal city government." He stated that she would give further details.
Melvin Dvorsky stated that he would like to see one change in the current form of city
government, and that is allowing all voters to have a voice in who the mayor is going to
be. Other than this, he feels everyone is doing a good job.
Becky Soglin, Longfellow Neighborhood, thanked the Commission for their hard work,
but stated that she is also disappointed that recommendations aren't being made to
change the Charter. She stated that it would be ideal if the mayor were elected directly
by the people. On the district issue, she feels each district should elect their
representatives, and she gave some examples of having four (4) districts and three (3) at-
large seats.
Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., stated she had been at the last public hearing and
agreed with both Derek Maurer and Becky Soglin on the issues. She spoke of the
changes that have taken place in Iowa City, and how the growth calls for change. She
feels that local activism is needed, and more direct representation of districts. Dieterle
also stated that she feels the Charter Review Commission should have had more
members, perhaps including people from the neighborhood groups, in order to give more
input. Novick asked if Dieterle was directly proposing that they change the Charter to
require a larger number of Commission members in the fixture. Dieterle stated that yes,
that is what she would like to see, with perhaps fifteen members and representation from
the neighborhood groups, as well.
Shelton Stromquist, 316 Myrtle Avenue, stated that he has been active in the Melrose
Avenue Neighborhood Association over the years. He referenced the changes in city
governments over the years, and what lie has noticed in his work in labor history at the
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2005
Page 3
University of Iowa. He feels that the review of the Charter is an opportunity to help
"restore a healthy democracy" in a very progressive city, and lie urged the Commission
members to consider snaking recommendations for change, especially with the mayoral
issue and the city manager position. Sueppel noted that in 1985, the issue of direct
election from each district was sent to the voters and it was voted down.
Melvin Dvorsky asked how many years Iowa City has had a city manager. Sueppel noted
since approximately 1952 or 1954.
Garry Klein, 628 2nd Ave., congratulated the members on their task, and voiced his
disappointment that no significant changes were going to take place with the Charter. He
feels that people in the community most likely feel "left out' of the process, and that
what is being recommended to the City Council is not necessarily what the citizens feel is
best. Green thanked Klein for his previous recommendations, and noted how this helped
the Commission make decisions along the way. Sueppel followed up by noting that at
the December I" "community type" public hearing, the consensus was that the city is
divided and there is no one particular stance. He further stated that citizens can always
petition to change the Charter, and do not have to wait another ten years before the next
review occurs.
Caroline Dieterle returned to comment about citizen activism, and that the Charter could
be changed via petition. She feels there needs to be a clarification of the authority of the
Objections Committee. She feels they should only be able to make objection to whether
or not there were sufficient signatures, and not the substance of the amendment that is
proposed. She stated that this question is currently waiting for an answer from the Court,
but this could take some time. She stated that if there could be an internal way to clarify
that for everybody, she feels it would be a good thing to do.
Sueppel asked if anyone had any closing remarks. He thanked everyone for attending
and participating.
APPROVED BY WRITTEN CONSENT
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2005 - 7:30 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerphone), Lyme Rowat, and William Sueppel, Chair; Nate Green arrived at 8:20am
Members Absent: Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:33 AM. He noted that this is the
23`d meeting for the Charter Review Commission.
APPROVE MINUTES:
MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the minutes of January 6, 2005, as written;
seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 6 to 0. (Green, Novick, Lensing absent)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING INPUT FROM PREVIOUS EVENING:
Sueppel stated that he thought the input was "excellent" and he wished that those present
at last night's public hearing had been present at the first public hearing, as lie welcomed
their comments and more participation in this process. Kubby stated that she felt that
Becky Soglin and Derek Maurer's suggestions for a 4 district /3 at- large, with the top
"vote getter" being the mayor, were a new approach. She also noted that Caroline
Dieterle's observation about the number of members on the Charter Review Commission
was good, and Sueppel agreed, stating that he feels this warrants further discussion.
Rowat stated that his understanding is that the number of members is not set at nine, but
rather it's a minimum of nine. Chappell stated that he feels that adding too many people
can also make the process more difficult and cumbersome. Questions arose over the
diversity of those picked for the Charter Review Commission, and which areas of the
City are covered by those chosen. Sueppel recommended to Karr and Dilkes that in the
future, when other Charter Review Commissions are formed, that they receive all of the
past Commissions' final reports so they can see any recommendations for the future. The
members asked Karr how many applications had been received. Karr retrieved the
information, stating they had received twenty applications, and nine appointed. Due to a
conflict of interest John Balmer resigned and Nate Green was appointed. Therefore, of
the original 20 applicants ten people were appointed. The conversation turned to the
neighborhood associations and having more input from these groups in the future. The
members discussed the need for diversity, a topic that was raised at the previous
evening's public hearing. Kubby stated that the question for her, now that they are at the
Charter Review Commission
January 14, 2005
Page 2
end of their review process, is what have they done here to aid more participation by the
citizens, in regards to their work on the Charter. Davidson noted that several decades
ago, there was a participation of the citizens, but that there is an "ebb and flow" to the
whole process, and right now it could be on a low end of participation. Karr noted that in
her office they have noted how difficult it is currently to get people involved in boards
and commissions, and the members agreed that perhaps it is a sign of the times. The
Commission directed Chappell to add a paragraph to the report to Council encouraging
City Council to consider diversity when making appointments to the Commission in the
future.
Kubby turned the discussion to asking the members if they wanted to review the number
of districts, in light of last night's comments. Sueppel stated that he spoke with Lensing
after last night's meeting, and her comment was that she was ready to pass their
recommendations on to the Council. He noted that she is interested in more "diversity,"
as well. Chappell stated that lie has given further thought to the number of districts, but
he doesn't feel a change is warranted yet. Members continued their discussion while
reviewing a district map that Kubby brought in, which has some ideas that colleagues of
Kubby's came up with. Rowat stated that his feeling, as well as those he has heard in
discussions, is to stay with the 4/3 split, which gives the at -large more seats. (TAPE
ENDS)
Chappell brought up the topic of participation by the citizens and low voter turnout, and
asked the Commission members just how much they can do about this issue, noting that
this is a national problem and not just a local one. Rowat picked up this topic by asking
if perhaps there doesn't need to be some "grass roots" efforts within districts to spark
more participation. Kubby stated that by having more districts, she feels this grass roots
effort would be easier to implement, and she pushed for a more "down home and close to
home" participation. Sueppel noted that if they were to recommend a change to 4 or 5
district seats, he does not feel the City Council would accept this, and it would force an
election on the citizens in this issue. He feels there has not been a "ground swell" by the
citizens to make this type of change. Davidsen stated that she feels that if the
neighborhood groups continue to grow and become more involved, then a change would
be warranted, but at this point she is reluctant to make a change. Werner stated that he
also favors keeping the 4 at- large /3 district seats, as is. Green stated that he agrees with
Kubby that it would increase representation, but at the same time, he believes having the
4 at- large /3 district seats keeps the majority at- large, and he feels they should not make a
change at this time.
MOTION: Kubby moved that there be four (4) district seats and three (3) at -large
seats on the City Council; seconded by Chappell. Motion did not carry 1 to 6;
Kubby voted in the positive; Werner, Chappell, Davidsen (on speakerphone),
Rowat, Sueppel, and Green voting in the negative. (Novick, Lensing absent)
Charter Review Commission
January 14, 2005
Page 3
REVIEW CHARTER:
Sueppel stated that as there are no new issues to consider, he would like to have a motion
to approve the non - redlined version for presentation to the City Council at their January
18, 2005, meeting. At this meeting he would Tike the Council to receive both the redlined
version, and the non - redlined version, of the Charter.
MOTION: Chappell moved the motion to approve the current non- redlined version
of the Charter, for presentation to the City Council at its January 18, 2005, meeting.
Motion seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 7 to 0. (Novick, Lensing absent)
PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL:
Sueppel stated that lie felt Chappell had done a fantastic job putting together the
presentation for the City Council. Chappell noted that Dilkes had reviewed his report, as
well, and she had some additional items to add. Kubby noted that Item 12, on page 3, she
questions the sentence, "From a policy standpoint, the Commission also determined it
would be more appropriate for such amendments to go through the public hearing process
than simply through a petition and voting process." She questions the word "simply" in
here. Discussion ensued on how to best re -word this sentence, as well as what the initial
discussion had been on this issue.
MOTION: Kubby moved to remove the word "simply" only, seconded by
Chappell. Motion carried 7 to 0. (Novick, Lensing absent)
Green noted that on the first page, his name should be changed from Nathan to Nate.
Chappell noted that under the "Conclusion" paragraph, the last two sentences make
reference to "leaving the decision in the hands of the City Council," and he wanted to get
the members' thoughts on this. Kubby stated that she feels that since there were no
significant changes made to the Charter, there would be no need for these changes to be
on a ballot. She feels the Commission should go ahead and recommend that the Council
do this by ordinance. After a brief discussion, the wording; "The Commission
recommends the City Council adopt the proposed Charter amendments by ordinance,"
was decided upon. All members present agreed to this change in the last paragraph of the
Commission's report. Chappell stated that he would make the changes, as discussed, and
he will then have Rowat review the final draft. After this, he will get the final draft to
Dilkes for her final review. It was then decided to have all of the Commission member's
names on the report.
MOTION: Kubby moved to adopt the redlined version as amended, giving
Chappell and Rowat authority to complete this document; seconded by Davidsen.
Motion carried 7 to 0. (Novick, Lensing absent)
Charter Review Commission
January 14, 2005
Page 4
MEETING SCHEDULE:
Sueppel noted that other than the City Council meeting on January 18, when they present
their report to the Council, he sees no need to schedule any further meetings at this time.
Karr asked for a clarification on what the members want to have available for the Council
meeting on January 18: the redlined version, the non- redlined version — both to be
presented that evening. Kubby then brought up the issue of the citizen's guide to the
Charter, and bow they could guarantee this process getting started. Dilkes stated that
once she has a draft prepared she will get copies to the Commission members, and they in
turn can get copies to those they know have an interest in the guide.
OLD BUSINESS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Green moved to adjourn; seconded by Werner. Meeting adjourned at
9:08 AM.
Late Handouts — Handed out at 4/8/2014 meeting
L N,,uawwlk
Mtn M
MINANCE NO. 76 -2792
AN ORDINANCE ADOP'T'ING A HONE RULE CHARTER FOR THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt a home
rule charter £or the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
SECTION II.. .ADOPTION. The home rule charter approved at the special
election of November 15 ,.1973, a copy of which charter is attached to..
this ordinance as "exhibit A ", and by this reference made a part hereof,; is'
hereby adopted as the home rule charter of the City of Iowa•City, IOWA.
SECTION III. FILING AND PUBLIC INSPECTION. The city clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to file a copy of the said home rule charter with
the secretary of state of the State of Iowa, and to maintain copies of the,
said home rule charter available for public inspection.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. Ordinance No. 2312, (2.01, Code of Ordinances },
and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with.thi*
ordinance, are hereby repealed. ;
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the
ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudica-
tion section,
e validity ordinance as a whale o an s y e
tion shall not affect th X of
provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or uncons
titutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon.
its final passage, approval and publication as required by law.;
it was moved by Foster and seconded by deProsse
that the ordinance be finally adopted, and upon roll call.there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:. (f
• X Balmer
X deProsse
X Foster
X Neubauser
X Perrot
X Selzer
Abstain Vevera
0
EXHIBIT "A"
HOME RULE CHARTER
OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
Recommended by the Iowa City Charter Committee
PREAMBI4E
The Citizens of Iowa City, Iowa, by virtue of the enactment of
this Charter, adopt the following principles:
1. That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens
and all share the responsibility for it.
2. Thai the government of Iowa City is a service institution,
responsive and accountable to its citizens.
3. That City officials should be accessible to the people and
have an affirmative obligation to secure for each person equality of
opportunity as well as due process and equal protection of law.
4. That each citizen has a right to obtain fair, equal, and
courteous treatment from each City official and employee.
5. That the City should perform all acts and take all measures
-2-
necessary and desirable to promote the general health, safety and
welfare of its residents, to encourage the participation of its citi-
zens in policy formation and to secure the full benefits of "Nome Rule."
DEFINITIONS
As used in this Garter:
1. "City" means the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
2. "City Council" or "Council" means the governing body of the
City.
3. "Councilmember ".means a member of the Council, including the
Mayor.
4. "Shall" imposes a duty.
5. "Must" states a requirement.
6. "May" confers a power..
7. "Voter" means a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa
City.
8. "Qualified voter" means a voter who is registered to vote in
Iowa City.
9. %oard" includes a Board, Commission, Committee or other
similar entity however designated.
10. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation,
company, association, political party, committee or any other legal
entity.
11. "Ordinance," except as provided in Article VII, means a City
law of a general and permanent nature.
tion.
12. "Measure" means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or mo-
ARTICLE I.
POWERS OF THE CITY
Section 1.01. Powers of the City.
The City has all powers possible under the Constitution and laws
of this State.
Section 1.02. Construction.
The grant of power to the City under this Charter is intended to
be broad; the mention of a specific power in this Charter is not in-
tended to be a limitation on the general powers conferred in.this
article.
Section 1.03. Savings Clause.
If any provision of this Charter, or the application of this
Charter to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Charter.
-4-
ARTICLE II.
CITY COUNCIL
Section 2.01. Composition.
The City Council consists of seven members. Four, to be known as
Councilmembers at- large, are to be nominated and elected by the quali-
fied voters of the City at large. The other three are to be known as
District Councilmembers; they are to be nominated by the qualified
voters of their respective districts, as provided by Article III, and
one is to be elected from each Council District by the qualified voters
of the City at large.
Section 2.02. Division into Council Districts.
The Council, by ordinance, shall divide the City into three Coun-
cil Districts of substantially equal population. These Districts are
to be designated as Council District A, Council District B, and Council
District C.
Section 2.03. Eligibility.
To be eligible to be elected to and retain a Council position, a
person must be a voter of Iova City, and if seeking or elected to repre-
sent a Council District, domiciliary of that Council District.
Section 2.04. Terms.
At the first election under this Charter, all seven Councilmembers
-5-
are to be elected; the Councilmember from Council District A, Council
District C, and the two Councilmembers at -large who receive the greatest
number of votes cast for Councilmember at -large are to serve for terms
of four years, and the other Councilmembers are to serve for terms of
two years. Commencing at the next regular City election, and at all
subsequent regular City elections, all Councilmembers elected to fill
the positions of those whose terms expire shall be elected for terms
of four years.
Section 2.05. Compensation.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of
the Mayor and the other Councilmembers, but an increase in the compen-
sation of the Mayor or other Councilmembers does not become effective
during the term in which the increase is adopted, and the Council may
not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December
immediately following a regular City election.
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the beginning of the terms of Council-
members elected at the regular City election, the Council shall meet
and elect from among its members the Mayor and Mayor pro tam for a
term of two years.
B. The Mayor is a voting member of the Council, the official
representative of the City, presiding officer of the Council and
its policy spokesman. The Mayor shall present to the City no later
than February 28, an annual State of the City message. The Mayor, in
the manner provided by State law, may sign, veto or take no action on
an ordinance, amendment or resolution passed by the Council.
C. The Mayor pro tem shall act as Mayor during the absence of
the Mayor.
Section 2.07. General Powers and Duties.
All powers of the City are vested in the Council, except as other-
wise provided by State law and this Charter.
Section 2.08. Appointments
A. The Council shall appoint the City Manager.
B. The Council shall appoint the City Clerk.
C. The Council shall appoint the City Attorney and such other
legal counsel as it finds necessary, and it shall provide for the ap-
pointment of the City legal staff.
D. The Council shall appoint all members of the.City's Boards,
except as otherwise provided by State law.
E. The Council shall fix the amount of compensation of persons
it appoints and shall provide for the method of compensation of other
City employees. All appointments and promotions of City employees must
-7-
t �
be made according to job- related criteria and be consistent with non-
discriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards established
pursuant to law.
Section 2.09. Rules; Records.
the Council may determine its own rules and shall maintain re-
cords of its proceedings consistent with State law.
Section 2.10. Vacancies.
7he Council shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective City
office as provided by State law.
Section 2.11. Council Action.
A. Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires
an affirmative vote of a majority of the Councilmembers except as other-
wise provided by State law.
B. The Council may submit to the voters, without a petition,
a proposition for the repeal, amendment or enactment of any measure,
to be voted upon at any succeeding general, regular or special City
election, and if the -proposition submitted receives a majority of the
votes cast on it at the election, the measure shall be repealed,
amended or enacted accordingly.
Section 2.12. Prohibitions.
A. A Councilmember may not hold any other City office or be a
City employee or elected County official while serving on the Council
nor hold any remunerated City office or employment for at least one
year after leaving the Council.
B. Neither the Council nor its members may dictate, in any man-
ner, the appointment or removal of any person appointed by the City
Manager. However, the Council may express its views to the City Manager
pertaining to the appointment or removal of such employee.
C. A Councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or di-
rection of any person appointed by or under'the control of the City
Manager.
ARTICLE III.
NOMINATION, PRIMARY ELECTION AND REGULAR ELECTION
Section 3.01. Nomination.
A. A voter of a Council District may become a candidate for a
Council District seat by filing with the City Clerk a petition re-
questing that his or her name be placed on the ballot for that office.
The petition must be filed at least four weeks before the date of the
regular City election and must contain signatures from the candidate's
District in a number equal to one -third or more of the number of sig-
natures required for at -large candidates.
B. A voter of the City may become a candidate for an at -large
seat by filing with the City Clerk a petition requesting that the can-
Qz
didate'e name be placed on the ballot for that office. The petition
must be filed at least four weeks before the date of the regular City
election and must be signed by voters of the City equal in number to
at least two percent of those who voted to fill the same office in the
last regular City election.
Section 3.02. Primary Election.
A. If there are more than two candidates for a Council District
seat, a primary !election must be held for that seat with only the quali-
fied voters of that Council District eligible to vote. The names of
the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the pri-
mary election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular City elec-
tion as candidates for that Council seat.
B. If there are more than twice as many candidates as there are
at -large positions to be filled, there shall be a primary election held
unless the Council, by ordinance, chooses to have a run -off election.
Section 3.03. Regular City Election.
A. In the regular City election, each Council District seat up.
for election shall be listed separately on the ballot and only the
names of candidates nominated from that Council District shall be
listed on the ballot as candidates for that seat. The three Council
District seats shall be designated on the ballot as Council District
-10-
A, Council District B and Council District C and each shall be elected
at large.
B. The at -large Council seats shall be designated on the ballot
as such.
ARTICLE IV.
CITY MANAGER
Section 4.01. Appointment; Qualifications.
In appointing a City Manager, the Council shall consider only the
qualifications and fitness of the person without regard to political
or other affiliation. During his or her tenure the City Manager shall
reside within the City.
Section 4.02. Accountability; Removal.
A. The City Manager is under the direction and supervision of
the Council and holds office at its pleasure. Unless otherwise pro-
vided by contract, a City Manager removed by the Council is entitled
to receive termination pay of not less than two months' salary, com-
puted from the date of the resolution of removal.
B. Upon the resignation or removal of the City Manager, the
Council shall appoint an individual qualified to perform the duties
of City Manager to serve at the pleasure of Council or until a City
Manager is appointed.
Section 4.03. Absence; Disability of City Manager.
The City Manager may designate a qualified City employee as
Acting City Manager to perform his or her duties during a temporary
absence or disability. If the City Manager does not make such a desig-
nation, the Council shall appoint a qualified City employee to perform
the duties of the City Manager until he or she returns.
Section 4.04. Duties of City Manager.
A. The City Manager shall be chief administrative officer of, the
City and shall:
forced.
(1) Insure that the laws of the City are executed and an-
(2) Supervise and direct the administration of City govern-
ment and the official conduct of employees of the City appointed by
the City Manager including their employment, training, reclassification,
suspension or discharge as the occasion requires, subject to State law.
(3) Appoint or employ persons to occupy positions for which
no other method of appointment is provided by State law or this Charter.
(4) Supervise the administration of the City personnel system,
including the determination of the compensation of all City employees
appointed by the City Manager subject to State law and this Charter.
-12-
I i
(5) Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to
be done for the City, make all purchases of materials and supplies,
and assure that such materials and supplies are received and are of
specified quality and character.
(6) Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and
undertakings of the City, and all City -owned property including build-
ings, plants, systems, and enterprises, and to have charge of their
construction, improvement, repair and maintenance.except where other-
wise provided by State law.
(7). Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys,
maps, plans, drawings, specifications and estimates for the City.
(8) Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and
permits authorized by State law or City ordinance and cause a record
thereof to be maintained.
(9) Prepare and submit to the Council the annual budgets in
the form prescribed by State law.
(10) Provide the Council within ten days following the end
of each month an itemized written monthly report showing all receipts
and disbursements for the preceding month.
(11) Attend Council meetings and keep the Council fully ad-
_13_
vised of the financial and other conditions of the City and its needs.
(12) See that the business affairs of the City are transacted
in an efficient manner and that accurate records of all City business
are maintained and made available to the public, except as otherwise
provided by State law.
(13) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and
professional assistance to Boards within limitations of the budget.
(14) Perform such other and further duties as the Council
may direct.
B. The City Manager, in performing the foregoing duties, may;
(1) Present recommendations and programs to the Council and
participate in any discussion by the Council of any matters pertaining
to the duties of the City Manager.
(2) Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs
of any department or the conduct of any employee under supervision of
the City Manager.
(3) Execute contracts on behalf of the City when authorized
by the Council.
Section 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts.
Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the City Manager
-14-
shall not take part in any election of Councilmembers. This prohi-
bition shall in no way limit the City Manager's duty to make available
public records as provided by State law or this Charter.
ARTICLE V.
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Section 5.01. Establishment.
The Council may establish Boards in addition to those required
by State law and shall specify the title, duties, length of term, qual-
ifications of members and other appropriate matters. The Council may
reduce or increase a Board's duties, transfer duties from one Board
to another or dissolve any Board, except as otherwise provided by State
law or this Charter.
Section 5.02. Appointment; Removal.
The Council shall appoint all members of Boards, unless otherwise
provided by State law, and shall seek to provide broad representation on
all Boards, subject to the requirements of State law. The Council shall
establish procedures to give at least thirty days' notice of vacancies
before they are filled and shall encourage nominations by citizens.
The Council shall establish conditions for the removal of members for
just cause, consistent with State law.
Section 5.03. Rules.
A. The Council shall establish rules and procedures for the
operation of all Boards, thich must include but are not limited to,
the adoption of by -laws and rules pertaining to open meetings.
B. The Council shall specify, for each Board, methods for infor-
mal and formal communication with Council, time schedules for the com-
pletion of reports requested by Council and such rules as it deems
appropriate.
C. A Board may establish additional. rules and procedures that
are consistent with State law, Council rules, and this Charter.
ARTICLE VI.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Section 6.01. Limitations on the Amount of Campaign Expenditures.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the
amount of campaign expenditures made by and on behalf of candidates v�+
for election to Council.
Section 6.02. Disclosure of Contributions and Expenditures.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe procedures requiring,
immediately before and after each regular, special, primary, or run -off
election, the disclosure of the amount, source and kind of all contri-
-16-
buttons received and expenditures made by (1) each candidate for elec-
tion to Council and (2) any and all other persons, for the purpose of
aiding or securing the candidate's nomination or election.
Section 6.03. Definition.
Within this article an expenditure or contribution does not mean
a person's time donated to aid or promote a candidate's nomination or
election.
Section 6.04. 'Violations.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe (1) penalties for
the violation of the expenditure limitations and disclosure require-
ments it establishes pursuant to this section and (2) when appropriate,
conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right to serve on Coun-
cil if elected, consistent with State law.
ARTICLE VII.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 7.01. General Provisions.
A. Authority.
(1) Initiative. The qualified voters have the right to pro-
pose ordinances to the Council and, if the Council fails to adopt an
ordinance so proposed without any change in substance, to have the
ordinance submitted to the voters at an election.
-37-
(2) Referendum. The qualified voters have the right to re-
quire reconsideration by the Council of an existing ordinance and, if
the Council fails to repeal such ordinance, to have it submitted to
the voters at an election.
(3) Definition. Within this article, "ordinance" means all
measures of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of
a permanent rather than temporary character and (b) include a proposi-
tion enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy or
plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration
of a law, policy or plan already enacted by Council.
B. Limitations.
(1) Subject Matter. The right of initiative and referendum
shall not extend to any of the following:
(a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature.
(b) The City budget.
(c) The appropriation of money.
(d) The levy of taxes or special assessments.
(e) The issuance of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds.
(f) The letting of contracts.
federal law.
(g) Salaries of City employees.
(h) urgency ordinances.
(i) Any measure required to be enacted by State or
(j) Amendments to this Garter.
(k) Amendments affecting the City Zoning Ordinance,
except those affecting a tract of land two acres or.more in size.
(2) Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall
be filed within two years after the same measure or a measure substan-
tially the same has been submitted to the voters at an election.
(3) Council Repeal, Amendment and Reenactment. No ordinance
proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the Council
without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant
to this article, may for two years thereafter be repealed or amended
except by- a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in
the original initiative ordinance. No ordinance referred by referendum
petition and repealed by the vote of the Council without submission to
the voters, or repealed by the voters pursuant to this article, may ' -
-19-
be reenacted for two years thereafter except by vote of the people, un-
less provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition.
C. Construction.
(1) Scope of Power. It is intended that this article confer
broad initiative and referendum powers upon the qualified voters of the
City.
(2) Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative peti-
tion will be invalid because it repeals an existing ordinance in whole
or in part by virtue of proposing a new ordinance and (b) an initiative
petition may amend an existing ordinance.
(3) Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition
may repeal an ordinance in whole or in part.
D. Effect of Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or re-
ferendum petition does not suspend or invalidate any ordinance under
consideration and such ordinance shall remain in full force and ef-
fect until its amendment or repeal by Council pursuant to Section 7.05A
or until a majority of the qualified voters voting on this ordinance
vote to repeal or amend the ordinance and the vote is certified.
E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which
repeals an existing ordinance in whole or in part does not affect any
-20-
obligations entered into by the City, its agencies or any person in
reliance on the ordinance during the time it was in effect.
Section 7.02. Commencement of Proceedings; Affidavit.
A. Commencement. One or more qualified voters, hereinafter re-
ferred to as the "petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum
proceedings by filing with the City Clerk an affidavit stating they
will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be responsible
for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and
specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent,
and by setting out in full the proposed initiative ordinance or citing
the ordinance sought to be reconsidered.
S. Affidavit. The City Clerk shall accept the affidavit for
filing if on its face it appears to have signatures of one or more
qualified voters. The City Clerk shall issue the appropriate peti-
tion forms to the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted
for filing. The City Clerk shall cause to be prepared and have avail-
able to the public, forms and affidavits suitable for the commencement
of proceedings and the -preparation of initiative and referendum peti-
tions.
Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation of Signatures.
A. Humber of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions
-21-
must be signed by qualified voters equal in number to at.leaht twenty-
five percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular
City election, but by not fewer than two thousand five hundred quali-
fied voters.
B. Form and Content. All papers of a petition prepared for
filing must be substantially uniform in size and style and must be
assembled as one instrument. Each signature on the petition must be
followed by the address of the person signing and the date the signa-
ture is executed. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or
have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of
the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition
filed with the City Clerk need have attached to it only one copy of
the ordinance being proposed or referred.
C. Affidavit of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing
signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed
by a qualified City voter certifying: the number of signatures on the
paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures
were affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes.them to
be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be
and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the
full text of the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any
person filing a false affidavit will be-liable to criminal penalties as
provided by State law.
-22-
i
D. Time for Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an ini-
tiative petition moat be -secured and the petition filed within six
months after the date the affidavit required under Section 7.02A was
filed.
E. Time for Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions may
be filed within sixty days after final adoption by the Council of the
ordinance sought to be reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more
than two years after such final adoption. The signatures on a referendum
petition must be secured during the sixty days after such final adoption;
however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final adop-
tion, the signatures moat be secured within six months after the date the
affidavit required under Section 7.02A was filed.
F. Revocation of Signature. Prior to the time a petition is
filed with the City Clerk, a signatory may revoke his or her signature
for any reason by filing with the City Clerk a statement of his or her
intent to revoke his or her signature. After a petition is filed a
signatory may not revoke his or her signature. The City Clerk shall
cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms suitable
for the revocation of petition signatures.
Section 7.04. Procedure after Filing.
A. Certificate of City Clerk; Amendment. Within twenty days after
-a3-
a petition is filed, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as
to its sufficiency, specifying, if it is insufficient, the particulars
wherein it is defective and shall promptly send a copy of the certifi-
cate to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified in-
sufficient for lack of the required number of valid signatures may be
amended once if one or more of the petitioners files a.notice of in-
tention to amend it with the City Clerk within two days after receiving
a copy of such certificate and files a supplementary. petition upon
additional papers within fifteen days after receiving a copy of
such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall comply with
the requirements of Subsections B and C of Section 7.03, and within
five days after it is filed the City Clerk shall complete a certi-
ficate as to the sufficiency of the petition as amended and promptly
send a copy of such certificate to the petitioners by registered mail
as in .the case of an original petition. If a petition or amended peti-
tion is certified sufficient, or if a petition or amended petition is
certified insufficient and one or more of the petitioners do not amend
or request Council review under Subsection B of this Section within
the time prescribed, the City Clerk shall promptly present the cer-
tificate to the Council.
B. Council Review. If a petition has been certified insuffi-
cient by the City Clerk and one or more of the petitioners do not file
notice of intention to amend it or if an amended petition has been cer-
-24-
tified insufficient by the City Clerk, one or more of the petitioners
may, within two days after receiving a copy of such certificate, file
with the City Clerk a request that it be reviewed by the Council. The
Council shall review the certificate at its next meeting following the
filing of such a request, but not later than thirty days after the
filing of the request for review, and shall rule upon the sufficiency
of the petition.
C. Court Review; New Petition. Each qualified voter has a right
to judicial review of Council's determination as to the sufficiency of
a petition. Proceedings for judicial review will be equitable in na-
ture and must be filed in the State District Court for Johnson County.
The right to judicial review is conditioned upon the timely filing of
a request for Council review under Section 7.04B, and the filing of the
petition for court review within thirty days after determination by
Council as to the sufficiency of the petition. A determination of in-
sufficiency, even if sustained upon court review, shall not prejudice
the filing of a new petition for the same purpose.
D. Validity of Signatures. A petition shall be deemed suffi-
cient for the purposes of Section 7.04 if it contains valid signatures
in the number prescribed by Section 7.03A and is timely filed, even
though the petition may contain one or more invalid signatures. A
signature shall be deemed valid unless it is not the genuine signs-
ture of the qualified voter whose name it purports to be, or it was
-25-
not voluntarily and knowingly executed. A valid signature need not
be in the identical form in which the qualified voter's name appears
on the voting rolls.
Section 7.05. Action on Petitions.
A. Action by Council. When an initiative or referendum peti-
tion has been determined sufficient, the Council shall promptly
consider the proposed initiative ordinance or reconsider the referred
ordinance. If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative'ordi-
nance without any change in substance within sixty days or fails to re-
peal the referred ordinance within thirty days after the date the peti-
tion was finally determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed
or referred ordinance to the qualified voters of the City as hereinafter
prescribed. Council may refuse to submit to the voters an ordinance
which has been proposed or referred in accordance with the provisions
of this article only if the petition is deemed insufficient pursuant
to Section 7.04. If at any time more than thirty days before a
scheduled initiative or referendum election Council adopts a proposed
initiative ordinance without any change in substance or repeals a re-
ferred ordinance, the initiative or referendum proceedings shall ter-
minate and the proposed or referred ordinance shall not be submitted
to the voters.
B. Submission to Voters. The vote of the City on a proposed or
-26-
referred ordinance shall be held at the regular City election or at the
general election which next occurs more than thirty days after the ex-
piration of the appropriate sixty or thirty day period provided for
consideration or reconsideration in Section 7.05A, provided, however,
that Council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred
ordinance any time after the expiration of the thirty day period pro-
vided for reconsideration in Section 7.05A. Copies of the proposed or
referred ordinance shall be made available to the qualified voters at
the polls and shall be advertised at thd City's expense in the manner
required for "questions" in Section 65 of the City Code of Iowa. The
subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed ordinance shall
be indicated on the ballot. :R7G, S
Section 7.06. Results of Election.
A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on
a proposed initiative ordinance vote in its favor, it shall be considered
adopted upon certification of the election results and shall be treated
in all respects in the same manner as ordinances of the same kind adopted
by the Council, except as provided in Section LO1B(3). If conflicting
ordinances are approved by majority vote at the same election, the one
receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to
the extent of such conflict.
B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting
-27-
on a referred ordinance vote against it, it shall be considered re-
pealed upon certification of the election results.
Section 7.07. Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or
Requirements.
The Council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions
or requirements affecting initiative and referendum which are higher
or more stringent than those imposed by this Charter.
ARTICLE VIII.
CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW
Section 8.01. Charter Amendments.
This Charter may be amended only by one of the following methods:
A. The Council, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment
to the voters at a City election, and a proposed amendment becomes
effective when approved by a majority of those voting.
B. The Council, by ordinance, may amend the Charter. However,
within thirty .(30) days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition
signed by voters of the City, equal in number to ten percent of the per-
sons who voted at the last preceding regular City election is filed
with the Council, the Council must submit the- amending ordinance to
the voters at a City election, and the amendment does not become af-
fective until approved by a majority of those voting.
-28-
C. If a petition signed by voters of the City equal in number
to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular
City election is filed with the Council proposing an amendment to the
Charter, the Council mast submit the proposed amendment to the voters
at a City election, and the amendment becomes effective if approved
by a majority of those voting.
Section 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
The Council, using the procedures prescribed in Article V, shall
establish a Charter Review Commission at least once every ten years
following the effective date of this Charter. The Commission, consisting
Of at leant nine members, shall review the existing Charter and may,
within twelve menthe recommend any Charter amendments that it deems fit.
The Council shall submit such amendments to the voters in the form pre-
scribed by the Commission, and an amendment becomes effective when ap-
proved by a majority of those voting.
CHARTER COMPARATIVE TABLE
The home rule charter is set out in this volume as adopted by the voters on
November 15, 1973, and by ordinance 76 -2792, on January 2, 1976. The
following table shows the disposition of amendments to the charter:
Ordinance
Number
Date
Disposition
77 -2826
3.15 -1977
6.01
77 -2858
9 -6 -1977
7.05B
77 -2864
9 -6 -1977
3.01
85 -3227
3 -12 -1985
Definitions 7,8, 2.01,
2.03,
2.05 -2.08, 3.01 -3.03, 4.04,
5.02,
6.04, 7.01 -7.05, 8.01, 8.02
85 -3228
3 -12 -1985
6.02
85 -3273
12 -17 -1985
2.01
90 -3462
6 -26 -1990
7.03A, 7.04A
95 -3671
3 -28 -1995
2.06B, 2.08C,E, 3.01A, 6.01, 7.04D
05 -4152
3 -1 -2005
Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2.05,
2.11,
2.12B, 3.01A, 3.02A, 4.04A,
5.02,
5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.01,
7.02,
7.03B,C,E, 7.04A,B,C, 7.05,
7.06,
8.01, 8.02
Res. 07 -262
8 -31 -2007
5.01
December 2007
Iowa City
ORDINANCE NO. 77 -2826
AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY TO MAKE SECTION 6.01 CONFORM WITH THE SUPREME
COURT DECISION OF BUCPUM V. VALEO.
BE IT ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow the City to
continue to impose limitations on the amount an individual or political committee
contributes to a single candidate but to remove the limitation on a candidate's
expenditure of personal funds and the ceiling on overall campaign expenditures.
SECTION II. AMEbuou. That Section 6.01, Home Rule Charter, be amended
by substituting the following language:
SECTION 6.01 LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the
amount of campaign contributions made by an individual or
political committee to a candidate for election to Council.
SECTION III. REPEALER. Section 6.01, Home Rule Charter, is hereby
repealed.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in effect after its
final passage, approval and publication as required by law.
It was moved by Foster and seconded by Balmer
that the Ordinance be finally adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT;
x Balmer
x deProsse
x Foster
x Neuhauser
x Perret
x Selzer
x Vevera.
T..V�� �A A
ATTEST:
V Mayor
City Clerk
First Consideration
Vote for passage:
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date of Publication
2/22/77
Ayes: Neuhauser, Selzer, Vevera, Balmer, Foster.
Nays: Perret. Absent: deProsse
3/1/77
Selzer, Vevera, Balmer, Neuhauser: Ayes. Perret,
deProsse: Nays. Foster: Absent
Passed and approved this 15thday of March , 1977.
RECEIVED 6 Anpg'IV ^D
1)1,,p
BY. THE LEGAL
ORDINANCE NO. 77 -2858
AN AMENDMENT TO .THE. HOME RULE.. CHARTER. FOR THE,
CITY OF IONA.CITY; IOWA, BY PROVIDING THAT INI,
TI:ATIVE OR REFERENDUM PROPOSALS BE HELD AT
REGULAR CITY OR GENERAL ELECTIONS WHICH NEXT
OCCUR MORE THAN TWENTY -FIVE [25J _DAYS AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF.THE APPROPRIATE PERIOD FOR CONSID-
ERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND AMENDING SEC -
TION 7.05(BJ THEREOF,
BE IT ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA;
Section 1. Purpose, The purpose of the Amendment
i:s to reduce the time period from more than thirty
C30J days to more than twenty five days from the
date of expiration of the time limit the City
Council may consider an initiative or referendum
proposal to the next general or City election.
Section 2. Amendment. Section 7,056 shall be
amended to read as follows:
B. Submission to Voters, The vote of the
City on a proposed or referred ordinance shall
be held at the regular City election or at the
general election which next occurs more than
twenty -five days after the expiration of the
appropriate sixty or thirty day period provided
for consideration or reconsideration in Section
7.05A, provided, however., that Council may pro-
vide for a special referendum election on a
referred ordinance any time after the expira-
tion of the thirty day period provided for recon-
sideration in Section.7.05A. Copies of the pro-
posed or referred ordinance shall be made avail-
able to the qualified-voters at the polls and
shall be .advertised at the City�s expense in the
manner required-.for "questions ".in.Section 65 of
the City Code of Iowa. The subject matter and
purpose of the referred or proposed ordinance
..shall be indicated on the ballot,
Section 3. Severability. If any section, provision
or part of the ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional,.such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance as.a whole
or.any section, provision or part thereof not adjud-
ged invalid or unconstitutional,
Section 4.. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be
in effect after its final passage, approval and pub-
lication as required by law,
Passed and adopted tI ,6th arof _p�-
ATTEST:
Urainance No. // -2858 ®`°
It was mov by deProsse and onded
by Perret , that the Ordinance
be adopted, and upon ro ca 1 there were;
AYES: NAYS; ABSENT:
x Balmer
x deProsse
x Foster
x Neuhauser
z '- Perret
z 4 Selzer
x - Vevera
1st consideration 8/30/77
Vote for Passage; Ayes: Vevera,
Perret. Nays:
Balmer, deProsse, Foster, Neuhauser,
none. Absent: Selzer
2nd consideration Moved.by deProsse, seconded by Perret, that the rule
Vote for Passage; r-equiring'ordinances to be considered and voted on for
passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting
Date of Publication at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the
second consideration'and vote be waived, and the ordi-
nance be voted upon for final passage at this time.
RECEIVED & APPROVED Ayes: Neuhauser, Perret, Selzer,
BY THE LEGAL EPARTMENT Vevera, Balmer, deProsse, Foster.
.\ & Nays: none. Adopted, 7/0.
ORDINANCE NO. 77 -2864 6CA-A �z
AN .*rlv'DNEWT TO THE HOM RULE CIFLRMA1 i 0R T11E
CITY OF IOrrA MY TO MAKE THE ELECTION PROM)UI'ES
OF A£CPICLE III COi ,TORM WITH CHAP'IM 376 t IOS911
COM, (1977) CITY ELTS,'PI(NS.
BE IT ESTABLISIM BY THE COUNCIL OF ME CITY OF
ICrA CITY, IOW %;
Section 1, Purpose, The purpose of this Amend ent
is to make the procedures for City elections in
Article III of the Charter conform to Chapter 376,
Iowa Cade (1977) City Elections.
Section 2. A =bent. That Section 3,01, Nomina-
tion, be amended by substituting the following lan-
guage.
Section 3,01. Nomination.
A. A voter of a Council District may become
a candidate for a Council District seat by
filing with the City Clerk a.valid petition
requesting that his or her none be Placed on the
ballot for that office. The petition must be
filed not more than sL\ty -five days nor less
than forty days before the date of the election,
and must be signed by voters from the candidate's
District equal in number to at least twv percent
of those who voted to fill the s<snr_ office at the
last regular city election, but not less than
ten persons.
B. A voter of the City may becoue a candidate
for an at -large seat by filing with the City
Clerk a petition requesting that the candidate's
name be placed on the ballot for that office.
The petition must be filed not nere than sixty-
five days nor less than forty days before the
date of the election, and must be signed
by voters equal in number to at least two
percent of those who voted to fill the same_
office at the last regular City election, but
not less than ten persons.
Section 3. Repealer. Section 3.01 of Article III,
Hceir Rule Charter, is hereby repaaled.
Section 9. Severability. If any section, provision
or part- of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole
or any section, provision or part thereof not
adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be �
in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication as required by law.
Passed and approved this6th day of September , 1977.
EUI3AU:,ER, hiF�YOR
ATTEST:
ARRTA S'iC1T,M I7 . rfTV CT,FRK ice:
1
Ord. No: -77 -2864
It was ved by deProsse and
seconded by u:a t t_I)e
Ordinance be adopted, and uix)n roll call therx-
were:
A )Ms: NMS; APSEW
X Balmer
-x deProsse
Foster
x Neuhauser
Perret
x Selzer
x _ Vevera
1st consi&,xation
Vote for Passage:
2nd consideration
Vote for Passage:
Date of Publication
Moved by Perret, seconded by deProsse,
that the rule requiring ordinances to
be considered and voted on for passage
at two Council meetings prior to the
meeting at which it is to be finally
passed be suspended, the first and
second consideration and vote be waive(
and the ordinance be voted upon for fir
passage at this time. Ayes: Foster,
Neuhauser, Perret, Selzer, Vevera,
Balmer, deProsse. Nays: none.
Adopted, 7/0.
RECEIVED Pr. AFTP.GV;4%
itY .TM I.EGAI, UFZ`TV :;� 1Tl
RHt3 `b- _ --
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -3227
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER TO
CLARIFY THE MEANING OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS,
AND TO CONFORM CERTAIN TERMS AND PROVI-
SIONS TO THE STATE CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY THAT:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of
this ordinance is to amend the City
Charter so that terms used therein are
consistent with similar terms in the Iowa
Code, to clarify certain provisions, the
meaning of which has been found to be
unclear, and to eliminate provisions which
are inconsistent with the Iowa Code.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. The following
sections and subsections of the City
Charter of Iowa City are hereby repealed,
namely, Definitions subsections 7 and 8,
and Sections 2.01, 2.03, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07,
2.08, 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 4.04, 5.02, 6.04,
7.01, 7.02, 7.03, 7.04, 7.05, 8.01, and
8.02, and the following are hereby adopted
in lieu thereof:
1. Sections 7 and 8 of the DEFINITIONS
are hereby amended to read as follows:
7. "Eligible elector" means a person
eligible to register to vote in
Iowa City.
8. "Qualified elector" means a
resident of Iowa City who is
registered to vote in Iowa City.
2. Each of the following sections and
subsections shall be amended to read
as follows:
Section 2.01. Composition.
The City Council consists of seven
members. Four, to be known as
Council members at large, are to be
nominated and elected by the quali-
fied electors of the City at large.
The other three are to be known as
District Councilmembers; they are
to be nominated by the qualified
electors of their respective
districts, as provided by Article
III, and elected by the qualified
electors of the City at large.
Section 2.03. Eligibility.
To be eligible to be elected to and
to retain a Council position, a
person must be an eligible elector
of Iowa City, and if seeking or
2
elected to represent a Council
District, must be a domiciliary of
that Council District,
Section 2.05. Compensation.
The Council, by ordinance, shall
prescribe the compensation of the
Mayor and the other Councilmembers,
and the Council shall not adopt
such an ordinance during the months
of November and December immedi-
ately following a regular City
election.
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the
beginning of the terms of
Councilmembers elected at the
regular City election, the
Council shall meet and elect
from among its members the
Mayor and Mayor pro tem for a
term of two years.
B. The Mayor is a voting member of
the Council, the official rep-
resentative of the City,
presiding officer of the
Council and its policy spokes-
man. The Mayor shall present to
the City no later than February
28, an annual State of the City
message.
C. The Mayor pro tem shall act as
Mayor during the absence of the
Mayor.
Section 2.07. General powers and
duties.
All powers of the City are vested
in the Council, except as otherwise
provided by State law or this Char-
ter.
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. The Council shall appoint the
City Manager.
B. The Council shall appoint the
City Clerk.
C. The Council shall appoint the
City Attorney and such other
legal counsel as it finds
necessary and it shall provide
for the appointment of the city
legal staff.
D. The Council shall appoint all
members of the City's Boards,
except as otherwise provided by
State law.
E. The Council shall fix the
amount of compensation, if any,
of persons it appoints and
shall provide for the method of
compensation of other City
employees. All appointments and
promotions of City employees
shall be made according to job -
related criteria and be
consistent with nondiscri-
minatory and equal employment
opportunity standards estab-
lished pursuant to law.
Section 3.01. Nomination.
A. An eligible elector of a
council district may become a
candidate for a council
district seat by filing with
the city clerk a valid petition
requesting that his or her name
be placed on the ballot for
that office. The petition must
be filed not more than sixty -
five (65) days nor less than
forty (40) days before the date
of the election and must be
signed by eligible electors
from the candidate's district
equal in number to at least two
(2) percent of those who voted
to fill the same office at the
last regular city election, but
not less than ten (10) per-
sons.
a. An eligible elector of the
City may become a candidate for
an at -large Council seat by
filing with the city clerk a
petition requesting that the
candidate's name be placed on
the ballot for that office.
The petition must be filed not
more than sixty -five (65) nor
less than forty (40) days
before the date of the election
and must be signed by eligible
electors equal in number to at
least two (2) percent of those
who voted to fill the same
office at the last regular city
election, but not less than ten
(10) persons.
Section 3.02. Primary election.
A. If there are more than two can-
didates for a Council District
seat, a primary election must
./r
n
be held for that seat with only
the qualified electors of that
Council District eligible to
vote. The names of the two
candidates who receive the
highest number of votes in the
primary election are to be
placed on the ballot for the
regular City election as
candidates for that Council
seat.
B. if there are more than twice as
many candidates as there are at
large positions to be filled,
there shall be a primary
election held unless the
Council, by ordinance, chooses
to have a run -off election.
Section 3.03. Regular city election.
A. In the regular City election,
each Council District seat up
for election shall be listed
separately on the ballot and
only the names of candidates
nominated from the Council
District shall be listed on the
ballot as candidates for that
seat. However, all qualified
electors of the City shall be
entitled to vote for such
candidates. The three Council
District seats shall be
designated on the ballot as
Council District A, Council
District B and Council District
C.
B. The at large Council seats
shall be designated on the
ballot as such.
Section 4.04. Duties of city manager.
A. The City Manager shall be chief
administrative officer of the
City, and shall:
(1) Ensure that the laws of
the City are executed and
enforced.
(2) Supervise and direct the
administration of City
government and the
official conduct of
employees of the City
appointed by the City
Manager including their
employment, training,
reclassification, suspen-
ii/1a
Sion or discharge as the
occasion requires, subject
to State law.
(3) Appoint or employ persons
to occupy positions for
which no other method of
appointment is provided by
State law or this Char-
ter.
(Q) Supervise the administra-
tion of the City personnel
system,, including the de-
termination of the compen-
sation of all City
employees appointed by the
City Manager, subject to
State law or this Char-
ter.
(5) Supervise the performance
of all contracts for work
to be done for the City,
make all purchases of
materials and supplies,
and assure that such
materials and supplies are
received and are of
specified quality and
character.
(6) Supervise and manager all
public improvements, works
and undertakings of the
City, and all City -owned
property including
buildings, plants,
systems, and enterprises
and to have charge of
their construction, im-
provement, repair and
maintenance, except where
otherwise provided by
State law.
(7) Supervise the making and
preservation of all
surveys, maps, plans,
drawings, specifications
and estimates for the
City.
(8) Provide for the issuance
and revocation of licenses
and permits authorized by
State law or City ordi-
nance and cause a record
thereof to be maintained.
r-a
(9) Prepare and submit to the
Council the annual budgets
in the form prescribed by
State law.
(10) Provide the Council
monthly an itemized
written monthly financial
report.
(11) Attend Council meetings
and keep the Council fully
advised of the financial
and other conditions of
the City as it needs.
(12) See that the business
affairs of the City are
transacted in an efficient
manner and that accurate
records of all City
business are maintained
and made available to the
public, except as other-
wise provided by State
law.
(13) Provide necessary and
reasonable clerical,
research and professional
assistance to Boards
within limitations of the
budget.
(14) Perform such other and
further duties as the
Council may direct.
B. The City Manager, in performing
the foregoing duties, may:
(1) Present recommendations
and programs to the
Council and participate in
any discussion by the
Council of any matters
pertaining to the duties
of the City Manager.
(2) Cause the examination and
investigation of the
affairs of any department
or the conduct of any
employee under supervision
of the City Manager.
(3) Execute contracts on
behalf of the City when
authorized by the Coun-
cil.
Section 5.02. Appointment; removal.
The Council shall, subject to the
requirements of State law, seek to
provide broad representation on all
Boards. The Council shall establish
rm
procedures to give at least thirty
days' notice of vacancies before
they are filled and shall encourage
nominations by citizens. The
Council shall establish conditions
for the removal of members for just
cause, consistent with State law.
Section 6.04. Violations.
The Council, by ordinance, shall
prescribe (1) penalties for the
violation of contribution limita-
tions and disclosure requirements
it establishes pursuant to this
section and (2) when appropriate,
conditions for the revocation of a
candidate's right to serve on
Council if elected, consistent with
State law.
Section 7.01. General provisions.
A. Authority.
(1) Initiative. The qualified
electors have the right to
propose ordinances to the
Council and, if the
Council fails to adopt an
ordinance so proposed
without any change in
substance, to have the
ordinance submitted to the
voters at an election.
(2) Referendum. The qualified
electors have the right to
require reconsideration by
the Council of an existing
ordinance and, if the
Council fails to repeal
such ordinance, to have it
submitted to the voters at
an election.
(3) Definition. Within this
article, "ordinance" means
all other measures of a
legislative nature,
however designated, which
(a) are of a permanent
rather than temporary
character and (b) include
a proposition enacting,
amending or repealing a
new or existing law,
policy or plan, as opposed
to one providing for the
execution or administra-
tion of a law, policy or
plan already enacted by
Council.
r�
B. Limitations.
(1)
Subject matter. The right
of initiative and referen-
dum shall not extend to
any of the following:
(a) Any measure of an
executive or adminis-
trative nature.
(b) The City budget.
(c) The appropriation of
money.
(d) The levy of taxes or
special assessments.
(e) The issuance of
General Obligation
and Revenue Bonds.
(f) The letting of
contracts.
(g) Salaries of City
employees.
(h) Any measure required
to be enacted by
State or federal
law.
(i) Amendments to this
Charter.
(j) Amendments affecting
the City Zoning
Ordinance, except
those affecting a
tract of land two
acres or more in
size.
(2)
Resubmission. No initia-
tive or referendum
petition shall be filed
within two years after the
same measure or a measure
substantially the same has
been submitted to the
voters at an election.
(3)
Council repeal, amendment
and reenactment. No
ordinance proposed by
initiative petition and
adopted by the vote of the
Council without submission
to the voters, or adopted
by the voters pursuant to
this article, may for two
years thereafter be
repealed or amended except
by a vote of the people,
unless provision is
otherwise made in the
original initiative ordi-
�9
D.
E.
nance. No ordinance
referred by referendum
petition and repealed by
the vote of the Council
without submission to the
voters, or repealed by the
voters pursuant to this
article, may be reenacted
for two years thereafter
except by vote of the
people, unless provision
is otherwise made in the
original referendum
petition.
Construction.
(1) Scope of power. It is
intended that this article
confer broad initiative
and referendum powers upon
the qualified electors of
the City.
(2) Initiative. It is
intended that (a) no
initiative petition will
be invalid because it
repeals an existing
ordinance in whole or in
part by virtue of propos-
ing a new ordinance and
(b) an initiative petition
may amend an existing
ordinance.
(3) Referendum. It is intended
that a referendum petition
may repeal an ordinance in
whole or in part.
Effect of filing petition. The
filing of an initiative or
referendum petition does not
suspend or invalidate any
ordinance under consideration
and such ordinance shall remain
in full force and effect until
its amendment or repeal by
Council pursuant to Section
7.05A or until a majority of
the qualified electors voting
on an ordinance vote to repeal
or amend the ordinance and the
vote is certified.
City obligation. An initiative
or referendum vote which
repeals an existing ordinance
in whole or in part does not
affect any obligations entered
into by the City, its agencies
10
or any person in reliance on
the ordinance during the time
it was in effect.
Section 7.02. Commencement of
proceedings; affidavit.
A. Commencement. One or more
qualified electors, hereinafter
referred to as the "petition-
ers," may commence initiative
or referendum proceedings by
filing with the City Clerk an
affidavit stating they will
supervise the circulation of
the petition and will be re-
sponsible for filing it in
proper form, stating their
names and addresses and speci-
fying the address to which all
relevant notices are to be
sent, and setting out in full
the proposed initiative
ordinance or citing the
ordinance sought to be recon-
sidered.
B. Affidavit. The City Clerk
shall accept the affidavit for
filing if on its face it
appears to have signatures of
one or more qualified electors.
The City Clerk shall issue the
appropriate petition forms on
the same day the affidavit is
accepted for filing. The City
Clerk shall cause to be
prepared and have available to
the public, forms and affida-
vits suitable for the commence-
ment of proceedings and the
preparation of initiative and
referendum petitions.
Section 7.03 Petitions; revocation
of signatures.
A. Number of signatures. Initia-
tive and referendum petitions
must be signed by qualified
electors equal in number to at
least twenty -five percent of
the number of persons who voted
in the last regular City
election, but by no fewer than
two thousand five hundred
qualified electors.
B. Form and content. All papers
of a petition prepared for
filing must be substantially
uniform in size and style and
r-�
III
must be assembled as one
instrument. 'Each person
signing shall provide, and the
petition form shall provide
space for, the signature,
printed name, and address of
the person signing, the date
the signature is executed, and
any other information required
by City Council. The form
shall also provide space for
the signer's birthdate, but a
failure to enter a birthdate
shall not invalidate a signer's
signature. Petitions prepared
for circulation must contain or
have attached thereto through-
out their circulation the full
text of the ordinance proposed
or sought to be reconsidered.
The petition filed with the
City Clerk need have attached
to it only one copy of the
ordinance being proposed or
referred.
C. Affidavit of circulator. Each
paper of a petition containing
signatures must have attached
to it when filed an affidavit
executed by a qualified elector
certifying: the number of
signatures on the paper, that
he or she personally circulated
it, that all signatures were
affixed in his or her presence,
that he or she believes them to
be genuine signatures of the
persons whose names they
purport to be and that each
signer had an opportunity
before signing to read the full
text of the ordinance proposed
or sought to be reconsidered.
Any person filing a false
affidavit will be liable to
criminal penalties as provided
by State law.
D. Time for filing initiative
petitions. Signatures on an
initiative petition must be
secured and the petition filed
within six months after the
date the affidavit required
under Section 7.02A was filed.
Q2
12
E. Time for filing referendum
petitions. Referendum peti-
tions may be filed within sixty
days after final adoption by
the Council of the ordinance
sought to be reconsidered, or
subsequently at any time more
than two years after such final
adoption. The signatures on a
referendum petition must be
secured during the sixty days
after such final adoption;
however, if the petition is
filed more than two years after
final adoption, the signatures
must be secured within six
months after the date the
affidavit required under
Section 7.02A was filed.
F. Revocation of signature. Prior
to the time a petition is filed
with the City Clerk, a signa-
tory may revoke his or her
signature for any reason by
filing with the City Clerk a
statement of his or her intent
to revoke his or her signature.
After a petition is filed a
signatory may not revoke his or
her signature. The City Clerk
shall cause to be prepared and
have available to the public,
forms suitable for the revoca-
tion of petition signatures.
Section 7.04. Procedure after filing.
A. Certificate of City Clerk;
amendment. Within twenty days
after a petition is filed, the
City Clerk shall complete a
certificate as to its suffi-
ciency, specifying, if it is
insufficient, the particulars
wherein it is defective and
shall promptly send a copy of
the certificate to the peti-
tioners by registered mail. A
petition certified insufficient
for lack of the required number
of valid signatures may be
amended once if one or more of
the petitioners files a notice
of intention to amend it with
the City Clerk within two days,
after receiving a copy of such
certificate and files a
supplementary petition upon
13
additional papers within
fifteen days after receiving a
copy of such certificate. Such
supplementary petition shall
comply with the requirements of
Subsections B and C of Section
7.03, and within fifteen days
after it is filed, the City
Clerk shall complete a certifi-
cate as to the sufficiency of
the petition as amended and
promptly send a copy of such
certificate to the petitioners
by registered mail as in the
case of an original petition.
If a petition or amended
petition is certified suffi-
cient, or if a petition or
amended petition is certified
insufficient and one or more of
the petitioners do not amend or
request Council review under
Subsection B of this Section
within the time prescribed, the
City Clerk shall promptly
present the certificate to the
Council.
B. Council review. If a petition
has been certified insufficient
by the City Clerk and one or
more of the petitioners do not
file notice of intention to
amend it or if an amended
petition has been certified
insufficient by the City Clerk,
one or more of the petitioners
may, within two days after
receiving a copy of such
certificate, file with the City
Clerk a request that it be
reviewed by the Council. The
Council shall review the cer-
tificate at its next meeting
following the filing of such a
request, but not later than
thirty days after the filing of
the request for review, and
shall rule upon the sufficiency
of the petition.
C. Court review; new petition.
Each qualified elector has a
right to judicial review of
Council's determination as to
the sufficiency of a petition.
Proceedings for judicial review
will be equitable in nature and
,,..F„
14
must be filed in the State
District Court for Johnson
County. The right to judicial
review is conditioned upon the
timely filing of a request for
Council review under Section
7.04B, and the filing of the
petition for court review
within thirty days after
determination by Council as to
the sufficiency of the peti-
tion. A determination of
insufficiency, even if sus-
tained upon court review, shall
not prejudice the filing of a
new petition for the same
purpose.
D. Validity of signatures. A
petition shall be deemed
sufficient for the purposes of
this Article if it contains
valid signatures in the number
prescribed by Section 7.03 and
is timely filed, even though
the petition may contain one or
more invalid signatures. A
signature shall be deemed valid
unless it is not the genuine
signature of the qualified
elector whose name it purports
to be, or it was not voluntar-
ily and knowingly executed. A
valid signature need not be in
the identical form in which the
qualified elector's name
appears on the voting rolls,
nor may a signature be deemed
invalid because the address
accompanying the name on the
petition is different from the
address for the same name on
the current voting rolls if the
qualified elector's birth date
is provided and is as shown on
the voting rolls.
Section 7.05. Action on petitions.
A. Action by council. When an
initiative or referendum
petition has been determined
sufficient, the Council shall
promptly consider the proposed
initiative ordinance or
reconsider the referred
ordinance. If the Council fails
to adopt a proposed initiative
ordinance and fails to adopt an
�n
15
ordinance which is similar in
substance within sixty days, or
if the Council fails to repeal
the referred ordinance within
thirty days after the date the
petition was finally determined
sufficient, it shall submit the
proposed or referred ordinance
to the qualified electors of
the City as hereinafter
prescribed. 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. If at
any time more than thirty days
before a scheduled initiative
or referendum election the
Council adopts the proposed
initiative ordinance or adopts
an ordinance which is similar
in substance or if the Council
repeals a referred ordinance,
the initiative or referendum
proceedings shall terminate and
the proposed or referred
ordinance shall not be submit-
ted to the voters.
B. Submission to voters. The vote
on a proposed or referred
ordinance shall be held at the
regular city election or at the
general election which next
occurs more than forty (40)
days after the expiration of
the appropriate sixty- or
thirty -day period provided for
consideration or reconsiderati-
on in Section 7.05A, provided,
however, that the council may
provide for a special referen-
dum election on a referred
ordinance any time after the
expiration of the thirty -day
period provided for reconsid-
eration in Section 7.05A.
Copies of the proposed or
referred ordinance shall be
made available to the qualified
electors at the polls and shall
be advertised, at the city's
expense, in the manner required
for "questions" in Section
16
376.5 of the Iowa Code. The
subject matter and purpose of
the referred or proposed
ordinance shall be indicated on
the ballot.
Section 8.01. Charter amendments.
This Charter may be amended only by
one of the following methods:
A. The Council, by resolution, may
submit a proposed amendment to
the voters at a City election,
and a proposed amendment
becomes effective when approved
by a majority of those voting.
B. The Council, by ordinance, may
amend the Charter. However,
within thirty (30) days of
publication of the ordinance,
if a petition signed by
eligible electors of the City
equal in number to ten percent
of the persons who voted at the
last preceding regular City
election is filed with the
Council, the Council must
submit the amending ordinance
to the voters at a City
election, and the amendment
does not become effective until
approved by a majority of those
voting.
C. If a petition signed by
eligible electors of the City
equal in number to ten percent
of the persons who voted at the
last preceding regular City
election is filed with the
Council proposing an amendment
to the Charter, the Council
must submit the proposed
amendment to the voters at a
City election, and the amend-
ment becomes effective if
approved by a majority of those
voting.
Section 8.02. Charter Review Commis-
sion.
The Council, using the procedures
prescribed in Article V, shall es-
tablish a Charter Review Commission
at least once every ten years
following the effective date of
this Charter. The Commission,
consisting of at least nine
members, shall review the existing
Charter and may, within twelve
17
months recommend any Charter amend-
ments that it deems fit. The
Council shall submit such amend-
ments to the voters in the form
prescribed by the Commission, and
an amendment becomes effective when
approved by a majority of those
voting. The Commission may also
recommend to the Council that it
exercise its power of amendment
pursuant to Section 8.01.B. of this
Charter on a matter recommended by
the Commission.
SECTION III. REPEALER: All ordinances
and parts of ordinances in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY: If any
section, provision or part of this Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or un-
constitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this 12th day of
March, 1985
MAYOR
ATTEST: ge
CITY CLERK
eyed �
Pp
Ord. No. 85 -3227
It was moved by Erdahl , and seconded by Strait ,
that the Ordinance as rea . e a opte and upon roll call t ere were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
x
AMBRISCO
BAKER
x
DICKSON
ERDAHL
K_
MCDONALD
x
STRAIT
x
ZUBER
x
First consideration
Vote for passage:
Second consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published March 20, 1985
Moved by Erdahl, seconded by Strait, that the rule requiring ordinances to be
considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting
at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the first and second consid-
eration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage
at this time.
Ayes: Ambrisco, Baker, Dickson, Erdahl, McDonald, Strait, Zuber
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -3228
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER
WITH RESPECT TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLO-
SURE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY THAT:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Section 6.02 of
The City Charter is hereby repealed, and
the following is adopted in lieu thereof:
Section 6.02. Disclosure of contribu-
tions and expenditures.
The Council, by ordinance, may
prescribe procedures requiring,
immediately before and after each
regular, special, primary, or run -off
election, the disclosure of the amount,
source and kind of contributions
received and expenditures made by (1)
each candidate for election to Council
and (2) any and all other persons, for
the purpose of aiding or securing the
candidate's nomination or election.
SECTION II. REPEALER: All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY: If any
section, provision or part of this Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this 12th day of
M
March, 1985. 11-\ _ „
ATTEST:
1 aco- .sr:I i'
Approved
Ord. No. 85 -322£.
It was moved
that he Erdahl and
as read a ad ptedcandeupon Strait
sere
were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x AMBRISCO
® x BAKER
x DICKSON
x ERDAHL
x MCDONALD
x STRAIT
x r ZUBER
First consideration
Vote for passage:
Second consideration
Vote for passage
Date published March 20, 1985
Moved by Erdahl, seconded by Dickson, that the rule requiring ordinances to be
considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting
at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the first and second consid-
eration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage
at this time.
Ayes: Dickson, Erdahl, McDonald, Strait, Zuber, Ambrisco
Nays: Baker
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -3273
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER TO
ALLOW ELIGIBLE ELECTORS TO SIGN COUNCIL
NOMINATING PETITIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. This ordinance,
amen ing ec lon 2.OT of the Iowa City
Charter, will allow unregistered but
otherwise qualified persons to sign
nominating petitions of City Council
candidates.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Section 2.01
of t o l y arter of Iowa City is hereby
repealed, and the following is adopted in
lieu thereof:
2.01 Cam osition.
T e City Council consists of seven
members. As provided in Article 'III,
four, to be known as Council members at
large, are to be nominated by eligible
electors of the City at large, and three,
to be known as district Council members,
are to be nominated by eligible electors
of their respective districts. All
Council members shall be elected by the
qualified electors of the City at large.
SECTION III. REPEALER: All Charter
provisions, or lnances or parts of
ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY: If any
section, provision or par o the Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This
Ordinance s a e 1n of ec after its
final passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and a roved this 17th day of
December, 1985
ATTEST:
It was moved by Erdahl and seconded by Ambrisco
that the r lnance as rea be 'adopted and upon roll call ther e
were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X AMBRISCO
X BAKER
X DICKSON
EROAHL
X MCDONALD
X STRAIT
X ZUBER
First consideration 12/3/85
Vote for passage: Ayes: a er, ickson, McDonald,
Strait, Zuber, Ambrisco. Nays: None. Absent: Erdahl.
Second consideration
Vote for passage
Date published 12/24/85
Moved by Erdahl, seconded by Strait, that the rule
requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on
for passage at two Council meetings prior to the
meeting at which it is to be finally passed be
suspended, the second consideration and vote be
waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final
passage at this time. Ayes: McDonald, Strait,
Zuber, Ambrisco, Baker, Dickson, Erdahl. Nays:
None.
ORDINANCE N0. 90 -3462
AND
7N04(A) AMENDING
CITYEC CODE F CITY CHARTER ORDERNTO CLAROIFY7PROCEDURES
ALSOECLARIFYINGLMINIMUM NUMBER IOF SIGNATURES AREQUIRED FOR ETHE D PROCEDURES
INITIAL PETITIONS.
WHEREAS, the current Charter provides that supplementary petitions for
referendum and initiative procedures must be filed with the City Clerk within 15
days of receiving a certificate of insufficiency from the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the Charter provisions are designed to allow supplementary petitions
only when the original petition had the minimum required signatures attached
thereto, but was not designed to permit garnering the minimum number of
signatures within that 15 -day period; and
WHEREAS, the additional 15 -day period should continue to be used to correct
insufficiencies in the original petition, but only if the original petition
contains the required minimum number of signatures; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to clarify the Iowa City Charter in
order to avoid any further confusion and make the process easier for both the
City and the public; and
WHEREAS, certain portions of the Iowa City Charter, namely Sections 7.03(A)
and 7.04(A) should be amended to reflect this clarification, and avoid any
confusion as to the proper initiative and referendum procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I CHARTER AMENDMENT. Section 7.03(A) of the Iowa City Code of
Ordinances is hereby repealed and a new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be
codified as follows:
(A) Number of signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed
by qualified electors equal in number to at least twenty -five percent of
the number of persons who voted in the last regular City election, but
such signatures shall be no fewer than two thousand five hundred qualified
electors. Any petition that does not, on its face, contain the minimum
required signatures defined herein shall be deemed insufficient for filing
under this Article, and no supplementary petition shall be permitted.
SECTION II. CHARTER AMENDMENT. Section 7.04(A) of the Iowa City Code of
Ordinances is hereby repealed and a new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be
codified as follows:
(A) Certificate of City Clerk; amendment. Within twenty days after a petition
is filed which contains the minimum required signatures, as set forth in
Section 7.03(A) above, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to
the petition's sufficiency. If the petition is insufficient, the Clerk's
certificate shall specify the particulars wherein the petition is
Ordinance No. 90 -3462
Page 2
defective. The Clerk shall also promptly send a copy of the certificate
to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified insufficient
may be amended once, provided, however, that one or more of the original
petitioners files a notice of intention to amend the original petition,
such notice to be filed with the City Clerk within two days after
receiving a copy of the certificate, and the petitioner also files a
supplementary petition upon additional papers within fifteen days after
receiving a copy of such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall
comply with the requirements of subsections B and C of Section 7.03.
Within fifteen days after a supplementary petition is filed, the City
Clerk shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition,
as amended and supplemented, and shall promptly send a copy of such
certificate to the petitioners by registered mail, as in the case of an
original petition. If a petition or amended petition is certified
sufficient, or if the petition or amended petition is certified
insufficient and one or more of the petitioners do not request Council
review under subsection B of h within e ttime
the prescribed, the
City Clerk shall promptly present the certificate o
eerrION III SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions of this Ordinance are for
any reason declared illegal or void, then the lawful provisions of this Ordinance
which are severable from said unlawful provisions, shall be and remain in full
force and effect, the same as if the Ordinance contained no illegal or void
provisions.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with
the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Charter Amendment Ordinance shall be in full
force and effect from the time of final . passage and publication of this
Ordinance, as by law provided, unless within thirty (30) days of publication of
the ordinance a petition is signed by eligible electors of the City equal in
number to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular city
election, i the am ding ordinance totthehvoters Council, at a in c which case
on. Council
Passed and approved this 26th day of June, 1990.
ATTEST:aa
CITY LERK
Approved by
Ci y Attorney's Office
It was moved by Ambrisco and seconded by Horowitz that the
Ordinance as read e a opted, and upon roll call there were:
First Consideration 6/12/90
Vote for passage: Ayes: Kubby, Larson, McDonald,
Novick, Ambrisco, Courtney, Horowitz. Nays: None. Absent:
None.
Second Consideration
Vote for Passage.
Date published 6/30/90
Moved by Ambrisco, seconded by Horowitz, that the rule
requiring ordinances tote considered and voted on for
passage at two council meetings prior to the meeting
at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the
second consideration and vote be waived and the
ordinance be voted upon for.final passage at this time.
Ayes: Larson, McDonald, Novick, Ambrisco, Courtney,.
Horowitz, Kubby. Nays: None. Absent: None.
J
y
ORDINANCE NO. 95 -3671
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IOWA CITY
CHARTER, SECTIONS 2,066 (MAYOR), 2,080
AND 2.08E (APPOINTMENTS), 3.O1A (NOMI-
NATION), 6.01 (LIMITATIONS ON THE
AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS),
AND 7.04D (PROCEDURE AFTER FILING), AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW
COMMISSION,
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Charter provides for
the establishment of a Charter Review Commis-
sion at least once every ten years; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Councl did
appoint a nine- member Commission forreviewof
the Charter on May 17, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Charter Review Commission
did meet twelve times for review of the Charter
and presented their recommendations to Council
on January 31, 1995; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the
recommendations on February 14, 1995; and
WHEREAS, It is necessary (cribs City Council
to adopt these recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. The Iowa City
Charter be hereby amended by:
a. Repeating Section 2.068 and adding a new
Section 2.0613 as follows:
B. The Mayor is a voting member of the
Council, the official representative of
the City, presiding offfcerof the Council
and Its policy spokesperson, The
Mayor shall present to the City no later
than February 28 an annual Stale of
the City message.
b. Repealing Section 2.08C and adding a new
Section 2.08C as follows:
C. The Council shall appoint the City At•
tamey.
c. Repealing Section 2.08E and adding a new.
Section 2.08E as follows:
E. The Council shall fix the amount of
compensation, if any, of persons It
appoints and shall provide for the meth-
od of compensation of other City em.
ployees. All appointments and promo-
tions of City employees by City Council
and City Manager must be made ac-
cording to job - related criteria and be
MY
0
Ordinance No. 95 -3671
Page 2
consistent with nondiscriminatory and
equal employment opportunity stan-
dards established pursuant to law.
d. Repeating Section 3.01A and adding a new
Section 3.01A as follows:
A. An eligible elector of a council district
may become a candidate for a council
district seat by filing with the city clerk
a valid petition requesting that his or
her name be placed on the ballot for
that office. The petition must be filed
not more than sixty -flve (65) days nor
less than forty (40) days before the
date of the election and must be signed
by eligible electors from the candidate's
district equal in number to at least two
(2) percent of those who voted to fill
the same office at the last regular city
election, but not less than ten (10)
persons.
e. Repeating Section 6.01 and adding a new
Section 6.01 as follows:
The Council, by ordinance, shall pre-
scribe limitations on the amount of cam-
paign contributions made to a candidate for
election to Council by a person as defined in
this Charter.
I. Repealing Section 7.041) and adding a new
Section 7.041) as follows:
D. Validity of signatures. A petition shall
he deemed sufficient for the purposes
of this article if it contains valid signa-
tures in the number prescribed by Sec-
tion 7.03 and is timely filed, even
though the petition may contain one or
more invalid signatures. A signature
shall be deemed valid unless If is not
the genuine signature of the qualified
elector whose name it purports to be,
or it was not voluntarily and knowingly
executed. A valid signature need not
be In the identical form In which the
qualified elector's name appears on the
voting rolls, nor may a signature be
deemed invalid because the address
accompanying the name on the petition
Is different from the address for the
same name on the current voting rolls
If the qualified elector's birth date is
provided and is shown on the voting rolls.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
pads of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
C
Ordinance No. 95 -3671
Page 3
SECTION 111. SEVERABILITY. It any section,
Provision or part of the Ordinance shall be ad-
judged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or
Part thereof not adjudged Invalid or unconsii-
tutfonai,
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE, This Ordi•
nance shall be in elfect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 28th day of
March, 1995.
cd
AYOR
ATTEST: li
CITY CLERK
App ved by l
O Gf�iY�.a
fly Attorney's (flee
CIONdudm.Md
Ordinance No. 95 -3671
Page _j
—
It was moved by Novick andsecondedby Pigott that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS;
_x
_x —
x
x
x
x _
x
ABSENT:
Baker
Horowitz
Kubby
Lehman
Novick
Pigott
Throgmorton
First Consideration 2/28/95
Vote for passage: AYES: Kubby, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton,
Baker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Horowitz, Lehman.
Second Consideration 3/7/95
Vote for passage: AYES: Baker, Horowitz, Kubby, Lehman, Novick,
Pigott, Throgmorton, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published . 4/5/95
ORDINANCE NO. 77 ®2826
AN AMENDMENT TO THE NOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY TO MAKE SECTION 6.01 CONFORM WITH THE SUPREME
OOURRT' DECISION OF BUCKLEY V. VALEO.
BE IT ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IGM CITY:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this kwxdmnt is to allow the City to
continue to impose limitations on the amount an individual or political committee
contributes to a single candidate but to remove the limitation on a candidate's
expenditure of personal funds and the ceiling on overall campaign expenditures.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT. That Section 6.01, Hare Rule Charter, be amended
by substituting the following language:
SECTION 6.01 LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS'
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the
amount of campaign contributions made by an individual or
political committee to a candidate for election to Council.
SECTION III. REPEALER. Section 6.01, Home Rule Charter, is hereby
repealed.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in effect after its
final passage, approval and publication as required by law.
It was moved by Foster and seconded by Balmer
that the Ordinance be finally adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
x
Balmer
x deProsse
X
Foster
Neuhauser
x
x Perret
x
Selzer
x
Vevera
,U C. �AQadA/4A it
Mayor
ATTEST: 2IL-
City Clerk
First Consideration 2/22/77
Vote for passage: Ayes: Neuhauser, Selzer, Vevera, Balmer, Foster.
Nays: Perret. Absent: deProsse
Second Consideration 3/1/77
Vote for passage: Selzer, Vevera, Balmer, Neuhauser: Ayes. Perret,
deProsse: Nays. Foster: Absent
Date of Publication
Passed and approved this 15thday of March , 1977.
RECEIOED P A.r1. lzi11
BY THE LEGAL
ORDINANCE NO. 77 -2858
AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOME RULE-CHARTER FOR THE
CITY OF IOWA. CITY;: IOWA, BY PROVIDING THAT INIr
TIATIVE OR .REFERENDUM PROPOSALS BE HELD AT
REGULAR CITY OR GENERAL ELECTIONS WHICH NEXT
OCCUR MORE THAN TWENTY',FIVE C251, DAYS AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE APPROPRIATE PERIOD FOR CONSID-
ERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND AMENDING SEC-
TION 7.05(61 THEREOF,
BE IT ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA;
Section 1, Purpose, The purpose of the Amendment
is to reduce the time period from more than thirty
0301 days to more than twenty-five days from the
date of expiration of the time limit the City
Council may consider an initiative or referendum
proposal to the next general or City election,
Section 2, Amendment, Section 7.056 shall be
amended to read as follows:
B. Submission to Voters, The Vote of the
City on a proposed or referred ordinance shall
be held at the regular City election or at the
general election which next.occurs more than
twenty -five days after the expiration of the
appropriate sixty or thirty day period provided
for consideration or reconsideration in Section
7.05A, provided, however., that Council may pro-
vide for a special referendum election on a
referred ordinance any time after the expira-
tion of the thirty day period provided for recon-
sideration in Section.7.05A. Copies of the pro-
'posed or referred ordinance shall be made avail-
able to the qualified - voters at the polls and
shall be.advertised at the City's expense in the
manner required -.for "questions". in. Section 65 of
the City Code of Iowa. The subject matter and
purpose of the referred or proposed ordinance
shall be indicated on the ballot,
Section 3. Severability, If any section, provision
or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional., .such adjudication shall
not affect the validity.of the Ordinance as. a whole
or any section, provision or part.thereof not adjud-
ged invalid or unconstitutional,
Section 4.. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall be
in effect after its final passage, approval and pub-
lication as required by law, ll�attwhh,
Passed and adopted t�VV U a of pte� berUti09
ATTEST
/.-1
Orainance No. // -Z858 "e.-
It was mov by deProsse and onded
by Perrot , that th.e Ordinance
be adopted, an upon ro ca 1 there were;
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x Balmer
x 9 TT4_ deProsse
x ° " ^ Foster
x Neuhauser
x - Perret
x " 4 Selzer
x Vevera
Ut consideration 8/30/77
Vote for passage: Ayes: Vevera, Balmer, deProsse, Foster, Neuhauser,
Perret. Nays: none. Absent: Selzer
2nd consideration Moved-by deProsse, seconded by Perret, that the rule
Vote for Passage; requiring'ordinances to be considered an voted on for
passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting
at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the
Date of Publication second consideration'and vote be waived, and the ordi-
nance be voted upon for final passage at this time.
RECEIVED & APPROVED Ayes: Neuhauser, Perret, Selzer,
BY THE LEGAL EPARTDdENT Vevera, Balmer, deProsse, Foster.
Nays: none. Adopted, 7/0.
ORDNANCE NO. 77 -28FII el�
AN _AkL ),%TNT TO THE iIOME RULE CIRWFa, OR THE
CITY OF Igj�% CITY TO DVaM THE ELECTION PIMMURES
OP ARTICLE III OD,,IURM MH CIIAPIM 3760 IOSIA
CODE (1977) CITY EL, IONS.
BE IT ESTABLISBED BY THE COWCIL OF T11: CITY OF
IOWA CITY, 101CA:
Section 1, Purpose. The purpose of this Axendrent
is to make the procedures for City elections in
Article III of the Charter conform to Chapter 376,
Iowa Code (1977) City Elections.
Section 2. Awr&ient. That Section 3,01, Nomina
tion, be am nded by substituting the following lan-
guage:
Section 3,01. Nomination.
A. A voter of a Council District may become
a candidate for a Council District seat by
filing with the City Clerk a.valid petition
requesting that his or her name be {laced on the
ballot for that office. The petition must be
filed not more than sixty -five days nor less
than forty days before the date of the election,
and must be signed by voters from the candidate's
District equal in number to at least two percent
of those who voted to fill the sanr-_ office at the
last regular city election, but not less than
ten persons.
B. A voter of the City may become a candidate
y for an at -large seat by filing with the City
Cleric a petition requesting that the candidate's
nacre be placed on the ballot for that offices.
The petition must be filed not nr>re than sixty -
five days nor less than forty days before the
date of the election, and must be. signed
by voters equal in number to at least two
percent of those who voted to fill the satin_
office at the last regular City election, but
not less than ten persons.
Section 3. Repealer. Section 3.01 of Article III,
Harr Rule Charter, is hereby repealed.
Section 4. Severability. if any section, provision
or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole
or any section, provision or part thereof not
adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be
in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication as required by law.
Passed and approved this6th day of September , 1977.
. �--
2Y C, EUIIAU ER, bF1YOR
ATTEST: CfiJ
ABBIE STOLFUS, TY CLERK / q
i
1
Ord. Nq:-77 ®2864
It was ved by deProsse and
seconded by erre - - -- - -- , -u,at the
ordinance be adopted, and ulxm roll call there
were:
AYES: NMS; APSIIdl ;
X Balmer
deProsse
x Foster
x "RT Neuhauser
x T Perret
x Selzer
x _ Vevera
1st consideration
Vote for Passage:
2nd consideration
Vote for Passage;
Date of Publication
Moved by Perret, seconded by deProsse,
that the rule requiring ordinances to
be considered and voted on for passage
at two Council meetings prior to the
meeting at which it is to be finally
passed be suspended, the first and
second consideration and vote be waive(
and the ordinance be voted upon for fir
passage at this time. Ayes: Foster,
Neuhauser, Perret, Selzer, Vevera,
Balmer, deProsse. Nays: none.
Adopted, 7/0.
REICEIVED Ir APrP.G " V <<
I3Y TUE I,BGAL DFZAVP!,! T1
R" j3 �- —1 _
�O 1
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -3227
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER TO
CLARIFY THE MEANING OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS,
AND TO CONFORM CERTAIN TERMS AND PROVI-
SIONS TO THE STATE CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY THAT:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of
this ordinance is to amend the City
Charter so that terms used therein are
consistent with similar terms in the Iowa
Code, to clarify certain provisions, the
meaning of which has been found to be
unclear, and to eliminate provisions which
are inconsistent with the Iowa Code.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. The following
sections and subsections of the City
Charter of Iowa City are hereby repealed,
namely, Definitions subsections 7 and 8,
and Sections 2.01, 2.03, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07,
2.08, 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 4.04, 5.02, 6.04,
7.01, 7.02, 7.03, 7.04, 7.05, 8.01, and
8.02, and the following are hereby adopted
in lieu thereof:
1. Sections 7 and 8 of the DEFINITIONS
are hereby amended to read as follows:
7. "Eligible elector" means a person
eligible to register to vote in
Iowa City.
8. "Qualified elector" means a
resident of Iowa City who is
registered to vote in Iowa City.
Each of the following sections and
subsections shall be amended to read
as follows:
Section 2.01. Composition.
The City Council consists of seven
members. Four, to be known as
Council members at large, are to be
nominated and elected by the quali-
fied electors of the City at large.
The other three are to be known as
District Councilmembers; they are
to be nominated by the qualified
electors of their respective
districts, as provided by Article
III, and elected by the qualified
electors of the City at large.
Section 2.03. Eligibility.
To be eligible to be elected to and
to retain a Council position, a
person must be an eligible elector
of Iowa City, and if seeking or
edf
elected to represent a Council
District, must be a domiciliary of
that Council District.
Section 2.05. Compensation.
The Council, by ordinance, shall
prescribe the compensation of the
Mayor and the other Councilmembers,
and the Council shall not adopt
such an ordinance during the months
of November and December immedi-
ately following a regular City
election.
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the
beginning of the terms of
Councilmembers elected at the
regular City election, the
Council shall meet and elect
from among its members the
Mayor and Mayor pro tem for a
term of two years.
B. The Mayor is a voting member of
the Council, the official rep-
resentative of the City,
presiding officer of the
Council and its policy spokes-
man. The Mayor shall present to
the City no later than February
28, an annual State of the City
message.
C. The Mayor pro tem shall act as
Mayor during the absence of the
Mayor.
Section 2.07. General powers and
duties.
All powers of the City are vested
in the Council, except as otherwise
provided by State law or this Char-
ter.
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. The Council shall appoint the
City Manager.
B. The Council shall appoint the
City Clerk.
C. The Council shall appoint the
City Attorney and such other
legal counsel as it finds
necessary and it shall provide
for the appointment of the city
legal staff.
D. The Council shall appoint all
members of the City's Boards,
except as otherwise provided by
State law.
..09
3
E. The Council shall fix the
amount of compensation, if any,
of persons it appoints and
shall provide for the method of
compensation of other City
employees. All appointments and
promotions of City employees
shall be made according to job -
related criteria and be
consistent with nondiscri-
minatory and equal employment
opportunity standards estab-
lished pursuant to law.
Section 3.01. Nomination.
A. An eligible elector of a
council district may become a
candidate for a council
district seat by filing with
the city clerk a valid petition
requesting that his or her name
be placed on the ballot for
that office. The petition must
be filed not more than sixty -
five (65) days nor less than
forty (40) days before the date
of the election and must be
signed by eligible electors
from the candidate's district
equal in number to at least two
(2) percent of those who voted
to fill the same office at the
last regular city election, but
not less than ten (10) per-
sons.
B. An eligible elector of the
City may become a candidate for
an at -large Council seat by
filing with the city clerk a
petition requesting that the
candidate's name be placed on
the ballot for that office.
The petition must be filed not
more than sixty -five (65) nor
less than forty (40) days
before the date of the election
and must be signed by eligible
electors equal in number to at
least two (2) percent of those
who voted to fill the same
office at the last regular city
election, but not less than ten
(10) persons.
Section 3.02. Primary election.
A. If there are more than two can-
didates for a Council District
seat, a primary election must
�i,-
be held for that seat with only
the qualified electors of that
Council District eligible to
vote. The names of the two
candidates who receive the
highest number of votes in the
primary election are to be
placed on the ballot for the
regular City election as
candidates for that Council
seat.
B. Tf there are more than twice as
many candidates as there are at
large positions to be filled,
there shall be a primary
election held unless the
Council, by ordinance, chooses
to have a run -off election.
Section 3.03. Regular city election.
A. In the regular City election,
each Council District seat up
for election shall be listed
separately on the ballot and
only the names of candidates
nominated from the Council
District shall be listed on the
ballot as candidates for that
seat. However, all qualified
electors of the City shall be
entitled to vote for such
candidates. The three Council
District seats shall be
designated on the ballot as
Council District A, Council
District B and Council District
C.
B. The at large Council seats
shall be designated on the
ballot as such.
Section 4.04. Duties of city manager.
A. The City Manager shall be chief
administrative officer of the
City, and shall:
(1) Ensure that the laws of
the City are executed and
enforced.
(2) Supervise and direct the
administration of City
government and the
official conduct of
employees of the City
appointed by the City
Manager including their
employment, training,
reclassification, suspen-
sion or discharge as the
occasion requires, subject
to State law.
(3) Appoint or employ persons
to occupy positions for
which no other method of
appointment is provided by
State law or this Char-
ter.
(A) Supervise the administra-
tion of the City personnel
system,. including the de-
termination of the compen-
sation of all City
employees appointed by the
City Manager, subject to
State law or this Char-
ter.
(5) Supervise the performance
of all contracts for work
to be done for the City,
make all purchases of
materials and supplies,
and assure that such
materials and supplies are
received and are of
specified quality and
character.
(6) Supervise and manager all
public improvements, works
and undertakings of the
City, and all City -owned
property including
buildings, plants,
systems, and enterprises
and to have charge of
their construction, im-
provement, repair and
maintenance, except where
otherwise provided by
State law.
(7) Supervise the making and
preservation of all
surveys, maps, plans,
drawings, specifications
and estimates for the
City.
(8) Provide for the issuance
and revocation of licenses
and permits authorized by
State law or City ordi-
nance and cause a record
thereof to be maintained.
(9) Prepare and submit to the
Council the annual budgets
in the form prescribed by
State law.
(10) Provide the Council
monthly an itemized
written monthly financial
report.
(11) Attend Council meetings
and keep the Council fully
advised of the financial
and other conditions of
the City as it needs.
(12) See that the business
affairs of the City are
transacted in an efficient
manner and that accurate
records of all City
business are maintained
and made available to the
public, except as other-
wise provided by State
law.
(13) Provide necessary and
reasonable clerical,
research and professional
assistance to Boards
within limitations of the
budget.
(14) Perform such other and
further duties as the
Council may direct.
B. The City,Manager, in performing
the foregoing duties, may:
(1) Present recommendations
and programs to the
Council and participate in
any discussion by the
Council of any matters
pertaining to the duties
of the City Manager.
(2) Cause the examination and
investigation of the
affairs of any department
or the conduct of any
employee under supervision
of the City Manager.
(3) Execute contracts on
behalf of the City when
authorized by the Coun-
cil.
Section 5.02. Appointment; removal.
The Council shall, subject to the
requirements of State law, seek to
provide broad representation on all
Boards. The Council shall establish
rs
procedures to give at least thirty
days' notice of vacancies before
they are filled and shall encourage
nominations by citizens. The
Council shall establish conditions
for the removal of members for just
cause, consistent with State law.
Section 6.04. Violations.
The Council, by ordinance, shall
prescribe (1) penalties for the
violation of contribution limita-
tions and disclosure requirements
it establishes pursuant to this
section and (2) when appropriate,
conditions for the revocation of a
candidate's right to serve on
Council if elected, consistent with
State law.
Section 7.01. General provisions.
A. Authority;
(1) Initiative. The qualified
electors have the right to
propose ordinances to the
Council and, if the
Council fails to adopt an
ordinance so- proposed
without any change in
substance, to have the
ordinance submitted to the
voters at an election.
(2) Referendum. The qualified
electors have the right to
require reconsideration by
the Council of an existing
ordinance and, if the
Council fails to repeal
such ordinance, to have it
submitted to the voters at
an election.
(3) Definition. Within this
article, "ordinance" means
all other measures of a
legislative nature,
however designated, which
(a) are of a permanent
rather than temporary
character and (b) include
a proposition enacting,
amending or repealing a
new or existing law,
policy or plan, as opposed
to one providing for the
execution or administra-
tion of a law, policy or
plan already enacted by
Council.
Zlq
Limitations.
(1) Subject matter. The right
of initiative and referen-
dum shall not extend to
any of the following:
(a) Any measure of an
executive or adminis-
trative nature.
(b) The City budget.
(c) The appropriation of
money.
(d) The levy of taxes or
special assessments.
(e) The issuance of
General Obligation
and Revenue Bonds.
(f) The letting of
contracts.
(g) Salaries of City
employees.
(h) Any measure required
to be enacted by
State or federal
law.
(i) Amendments to this
Charter.
(j) Amendments affecting
the City Zoning
Ordinance, except
those affecting a
tract of land two
acres or more in
size.
(2) Resubmission. No initia-
tive or referendum
petition shall be filed
within two years after the
same measure or a measure
substantially the same has
been submitted to the
voters at an election.
(3) Council repeal, amendment
and reenactment. No
ordinance proposed by
initiative petition and
adopted by the vote of the
Council without submission
to the voters, or adopted
by the voters pursuant to
this article, may for two
years thereafter be
repealed or amended except
by a vote of the people,
unless provision is
otherwise made in the
original initiative ordi-
4-9
nance. No ordinance
referred by referendum
petition and repealed by
the vote of the Council
without submission to the
voters, or repealed by the
voters pursuant to this
article, may be reenacted
for two years thereafter
except by vote of the
people, unless provision
is otherwise made in the
original referendum
petition.
C. Construction.
(1) Scope of power. It is
intended that this article
confer broad initiative
and referendum powers upon
the qualified electors of
the City.
(2) Initiative. It is
intended that (a) no
initiative petition will
be invalid because it
repeals an existing
ordinance in whole or in
part by virtue of propos-
ing a new ordinance and
(b) an initiative petition
may amend an existing
ordinance.
(3) Referendum. It is intended
that a referendum petition
may repeal an ordinance in
whole or in part.
D. Effect of filing petition. The
filing of an initiative or
referendum petition does not
suspend or invalidate any
ordinance under consideration
and such ordinance shall remain
in full force and effect until
its amendment or repeal by
Council pursuant to Section
7.05A or until a majority of
the qualified electors voting
on an ordinance vote to repeal
or amend the ordinance and the
vote is certified.
E. City obligation. An initiative
or referendum vote which
repeals an existing ordinance
in whole or in part does not
affect any obligations entered
into by the City, its agencies
Mirm
10
or any person in reliance on
the ordinance during the time
it was in effect.
Section 7.02. Commencement of
proceedings; affidavit.
A. Commencement. One or more
qualified electors, hereinafter
referred to as the "petition-
ers," may commence initiative
or referendum proceedings by
filing with the City Clerk an
affidavit stating they will
supervise the circulation of
the petition and will be re-
sponsible for filing it in
proper form, stating their
names and addresses and speci-
fying the address to which all
relevant notices are to be
sent, and setting out in full
the proposed initiative
ordinance or citing the
ordinance sought to be recon-
sidered.
B. Affidavit. The City Clerk
shall accept the affidavit for
filing if on its face it
appears to have signatures of
one or more qualified electors.
The City Clerk shall issue the
appropriate petition forms on
the same day the affidavit is
accepted for filing. The City
Clerk shall cause to be
prepared and have available to
the public, forms and affida-
vits suitable for the commence-
ment of proceedings and the
preparation of initiative and
referendum petitions.
Section 7.03 Petitions; revocation
of signatures.
A. Number of signatures. Initia-
tive and referendum petitions
must be signed by qualified
electors equal in number to at
least twenty -five percent of
the number of persons who voted
in the last regular City
election, but by no fewer than
two thousand five hundred
qualified electors.
B. Form and content. All papers
of a petition prepared for
filing must be substantially
uniform in size and style and
145.`60
11
must be assembled as one
instrument. 'Each person
signing shall provide, and the
petition form shall provide
space for, the signature,
printed name, and address of
the person signing, the date
the signature is executed, and
any other information required
by City Council. The form
shall also provide space for
the signer's birthdate, but a
failure to enter a birthdate
shall not invalidate a signer's
signature. Petitions prepared
for circulation must contain or
have attached thereto through-
out their circulation the full
text of the ordinance proposed
or sought to be reconsidered.
The petition filed with the
City Clerk need have attached
to it only one copy of the
ordinance being proposed or
referred.
C. Affidavit of circulator. Each
paper of a petition containing
signatures must have attached
to it when filed an affidavit
executed by a qualified elector
certifying: the number of
signatures on the paper, that
he or she personally circulated
it, that all signatures were
affixed in his or her presence,
that he or she believes them to
be genuine signatures of the
persons whose names they
purport to be and that each
signer had an opportunity
before signing to read the full
text of the ordinance proposed
or sought to be reconsidered.
Any person filing a false
affidavit will be liable to
criminal penalties as provided
by State law.
D. Time for filing initiative
petitions. Signatures on an
initiative petition must be
secured and the petition filed
within six months after the
date the affidavit required
under Section 7.02A was filed.
12
E. Time for filing referendum
petitions. Referendum peti-
tions may be filed within sixty
days after final adoption by
the Council of the ordinance
sought to be reconsidered, or
subsequently at any time more
than two years after such final
adoption. The signatures on a
referendum petition must be
secured during the sixty days
after such final adoption;
however, if the petition is
filed more than two years after
final adoption, the signatures
must be secured within six
months after the date the
affidavit required under
Section 7.02A was filed.
F. Revocation of signature. Prior
to the time a petition is filed
with the City Clerk, a signa-
tory may revoke his or her
signature for any reason by
filing with the City Clerk a
statement of his or her intent
to revoke his or her signature.
After a petition is filed a
signatory may not revoke his or
her signature. The City Clerk
shall cause to be prepared and
have available to the public,
forms suitable for the revoca-
tion of petition signatures.
Section 7.04 Procedure after filing.
A. Certificate of City Clerk;
amendment. Within twenty days
after a petition is filed, the
City Clerk shall complete a
certificate as to its suffi-
ciency, specifying, if it is
insufficient, the particulars
wherein it is defective and
shall promptly send a copy of
the certificate to the peti-
tioners by registered mail. A
petition certified insufficient
for lack of the required number
of valid signatures may be
amended once if one or more of
the petitioners files a notice
of intention to amend it with
the City Clerk within two days
after receiving a copy of such
certificate and files a
supplementary petition upon
13
additional papers within
fifteen days after receiving a
copy of such certificate. Such
supplementary petition shall
comply with the requirements of
Subsections B and C of Section
7.031 and within fifteen days
after it is filed, the City
Clerk shall complete a certifi-
cate as to the sufficiency of
the petition as amended and
promptly send a copy of such
certificate to the petitioners
by registered mail as in the
case of an original petition.
If a petition or amended
petition is certified suffi-
cient, or if a petition or
amended petition is certified
insufficient and one or more of
the petitioners do not amend or
request Council review under
Subsection B of this Section
within the time prescribed, the
City Clerk shall promptly
present the certificate to the
Council.
B. Council review. If a petition
has been certified insufficient
by the City Clerk and one or
more of the petitioners do not
file notice of intention to
amend it or if an amended
petition has been certified
insufficient by the City Clerk,
one or more of the petitioners
may, within two days after
receiving a copy of such
certificate, file with the City
Clerk a request that it be
reviewed by the Council. The
Council shall review the cer-
tificate at its next meeting
following the filing of such a
request, but not later than
thirty days after the filing of
the request for review, and
shall rule upon the sufficiency
of the petition.
C. Court review; new petition.
Each qualified elector has a
right to judicial review of
Council's determination as to
the sufficiency of a petition.
Proceedings for judicial review
will be equitable in nature and
le:r
14
must be filed in the State
District Court for Johnson
County. The right to judicial
review is conditioned upon the
timely filing of a request for
Council review under Section
7.046, and the filing of the
petition for court review
within thirty days after
determination by Council as to
the sufficiency of the peti-
tion. A determination of
insufficiency, even if sus-
tained upon court review, shall
not prejudice the filing of a
new petition for the same
purpose.
D. Validity of signatures. A
petition shall be deemed
sufficient for the purposes of
this Article if it contains
valid signatures in the number
prescribed by Section 7.03 and
is timely filed, even though
the petition may contain one or
more invalid signatures. A
signature shall be deemed valid
unless it is not the genuine
signature of the qualified
elector whose name it purports
to be, or it was not voluntar-
ily and knowingly executed. A
valid signature need not be in
the identical form in which the
qualified elector's name
appears on the voting rolls,
nor may a signature be deemed
invalid because the address
accompanying the name on the
petition is different from the
address for the same name on
the current voting rolls if the
qualified elector's birth date
is provided and is as shown on
the voting rolls.
Section 7.05. Action on petitions.
A. Action by council. When an
initiative or referendum
petition has been determined
sufficient, the Council shall
promptly consider the proposed
initiative ordinance or
reconsider the referred
ordinance. If the Council fails
to adopt a proposed initiative
ordinance and fails to adopt an
i--aa
15
ordinance which is similar in
substance within sixty days, or
if the Council fails to repeal
the referred ordinance within
thirty days after the date the
petition was finally determined
sufficient, it shall submit the
proposed or referred ordinance
to the qualified electors of
the City as hereinafter
prescribed. 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. If at
any time more than thirty days
before a scheduled initiative
or referendum election the
Council adopts the proposed
initiative ordinance or adopts
an ordinance which is similar
in substance or if the Council
repeals a referred ordinance,
the initiative or referendum
proceedings shall terminate and
the proposed or referred
ordinance shall not be submit-
ted to the voters.
B. Submission to voters. The vote
on a proposed or referred
ordinance shall be held at the
regular city election or at the
general election which next
occurs more than forty (40)
days after the expiration of
the appropriate sixty- or
thirty -day period provided for
consideration or reconsiderati-
on in Section 7.05A, provided,
however, that the council may
provide for a special referen-
dum election on a referred
ordinance any time after the
expiration of the thirty -day
period provided for reconsid-
eration in Section 7.05A.
Copies of the proposed or
referred ordinance shall be
made available to the qualified
electors at the polls and shall
be advertised, at the city's
expense, in the manner required
for "questions" in Section
16
376.5 of the Iowa Code. The
subject matter and purpose of
the referred or proposed
ordinance shall be indicated on
the ballot.
Section 8.01. Charter amendments.
This Charter may be amended only by
one of the following methods:
A. The Council, by resolution, may
submit a proposed amendment to
the voters at a City election,
and a proposed amendment
becomes effective when approved
by a majority of those voting.
B. The Council, by ordinance, may
amend the Charter. However,
within thirty (30) days of
publication of the ordinance,
if a petition signed by
eligible electors of the City
equal in number to ten percent
of the persons who voted at the
last preceding regular City
election is filed with the
Council, the Council must
submit the amending ordinance
to the voters at a City
election, and the amendment
does not become effective until
approved by a majority of those
voting.
C. If a petition signed by
eligible electors of the City
equal in number to ten percent
of the persons who voted at the
last preceding regular City
election is filed with the
Council proposing an amendment
to the Charter, the Council
must submit the proposed
amendment to the voters at a
City election, and the amend-
ment becomes effective if
approved by a majority of those
voting.
Section 8.02. Charter Review Camis-
sion.
The Council, using the procedures
prescribed in Article V, shall es-
tablish a Charter Review Commission
at least once every ten years
following the effective date of
this Charter. The Commission,
consisting of at least nine
members, shall review the existing
Charter and may, within twelve
Z/'
17
months recommend any Charter amend-
ments that it deems fit. The
Council shall submit such amend-
ments to the voters in the form
prescribed by the Commission, and
an amendment becomes effective when
approved by a majority of those
voting. The Commission may also
recommend to the Council that it
exercise its power of amendment
pursuant to Section 8.01.B. of this
Charter on a matter recommended by
the Commission.
SECTION III. REPEALER: All ordinances
ana pars o or finances in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY: If any
section, provision or part of this Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or un-
constitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this 12th day of
March, 1985
MA
ATTEST: 4h ,�.,J,J 9Y )
CITY CLERK
ReJ A
By & A royal
.ls C;:crat
e n
Ord. No. 85 -3227
It was moved by Erdahl and seconded by Strait
that the Ordinance as rea e a opte and upon roll call t ere were.
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
AMBRISCO
x
BAKER
DICKSON
x
ERDAHL
x
MCDONALD
x
STRAIT
x
ZUBER
x
First consideration
Vote for passage:
Second consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published March 20, 1985
Moved by Erdahl, seconded by Strait, that the rule requiring ordinances to be
considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting
at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the first and second consid-
eration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage
at this time.
Ayes: Ambrisco, Baker, Dickson, Erdahl, McDonald, Strait, Zuber
Nays: None
W.
ORDINANCE NO. 8S -3228
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER
WITH RESPECT TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLO-
SURE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY THAT:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Section 6.02 of
the City Charter is hereby repealed, and
the following is adopted in lieu thereof:
Section 6.02. Disclosure of contribu-
tions and expenditures.
The Council, by ordinance, may
prescribe procedures requiring,
immediately before and after each
regular, special, primary, or run -off
election, the disclosure of the amount,
source and kind of contributions
received and expenditures made by (1)
each candidate for election to Council
and (2) any and all other persons, for
the purpose of aiding or securing the
candidate's nomination or election.
SECTION II. REPEALER: All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY: If any
section, provision or part of this Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordi-
nance s a be in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law. 12th day of
Passed and gpproved this Y
March, 1985. M
ATTEST:
iif.•C�3:'3�J:I Approved
s... iv;: 2! i"Qoa ; nY
_V
Ord. No. 85 -3220
It was moved by Erdahl and seconded by Strait
that the Or finance as rea a adopted and upon ro ca ere
were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x AMBRISCO
x BAKER
z DICKSON
x ERDAHL
x MCDONALD
z STRAIT
x ZUBER
First consideration
Vote for passage:
Second consideration
Vote for passage
Date published March 20, 1985
Moved by Erdahl, seconded by Dickson, that the rule requiring ordinances to be
considered and voted on for passage at two council meetings prior to the meeting
at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the first and second consid-
eration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage
at this time.
Ayes: Dickson, Erdahl, McDonald, Strait, Zuber, Ambrisco
Nays: Baker
r`�, �
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -3273
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER TO
ALLOW ELIGIBLE ELECTORS TO SIGN COUNCIL
NOMINATING PETITIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. This ordinance,
amen ing ec ion 2.01 of the Iowa City
Charter, will allow unregistered but
otherwise qualified persons to sign
nominating petitions of City Council
candidates.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Section 2.01
of t o 1 y—tFarter oT Iowa City is hereby
repealed, and the following is adopted in
lieu thereof:
2.01 Composition.
The City Council consists of seven
members. As provided in Article 'III,
four, to be known as Council members at
large, are to be nominated by eligible
electors of the City at large, and three,
to be known as district Council members,
are to be nominated by eligible electors
of their respective districts. All
Council members shall be elected by the
qualified electors of the City at large.
SECTION III, REPEALER: All Charter
provisions, or finances or parts of
ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY: If any
section, provision or par o the Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This
Ordinance s a e in of ec after its
final passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and a roved this 17th day of
December, 1985
ATTEST:
It was moved by
Erdahl and seconded by Ambrisco
that therdinance as read be 'adopted and upon row ca sere
were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X AMBRISCO
X BAKER
X DICKSON
ERDANL
X MCDONALD
X STRAIT
X ZUBER
First consideration 12/3/85
Vote for passage: Ayes: a er—,Dickson, McDonald,
Strait, Zuber, Ambrisco. Nays: None. Absent: Erdahl.
Second consideration
Vote for passage
Date published 12/24/85
Moved by Erdahl, seconded by Strait, that the rule
requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on
for passage at two Council meetings prior to the
meeting at which it is to be finally passed be
suspended, the second consideration and vote be
waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final
passage at this time. Ayes: McDonald, Strait,
Zuber, Ambrisco, Baker, Dickson, Erdahl. Nays:
None.
TA
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -3462
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IOWA CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTION 7.03(A) AND
7.04(A) OF THE IOWA CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY PROCEDURES
CONCERNING INITIATIVE REFERENDUM
NUMBER OF SIGNATURES FORTHE� PROCEDURES
NITALPE ITI
SO CLARIFYING NS.
WHEREAS, the current Charter provides that supplementary petitions for
referendum and initiative procedures must be filed with the City Clerk within 15
days of receiving a certificate of insufficiency from the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the Charter provisions are designed to allow supplementary petitions
only when the original petition had the minimum required signatures attached
thereto, but was not designed to permit garnering the minimum number of
signatures within that 15 -day period; and
WHEREAS, the additional 15 -day period should continue to be used to correct
insufficiencies in the original petition, but only if the original petition
contains the required minimum number of signatures; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to clarify the Iowa City Charter in
order to avoid any further confusion and make the process easier for both the
City and the public; and
WHEREAS, certain portions of the Iowa City Charter, namely Sections 7.03(A)
and 7.04(A) should be amended to reflect this clarification, and avoid any
confusion as to the proper initiative and referendum procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. CHARTER AMENDMENT. Section 7.03(A) of the Iowa City Code of
Ordinances is hereby repealed and a new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be
codified as follows:
(A) Number of signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed
by qualified electors equal in number to at least twenty -five percent of
the number of persons who voted in the last regular City election, but
such signatures shall be no fewer than two thousand five hundred qualified
electors. Any petition that does not, on its face, contain the minimum
required signatures defined herein shall be deemed insufficient for filing
under this Article, and no supplementary petition shall be permitted.
SECTION II. CHARTER AMENDMENT. Section 7.04(A) of the Iowa City Code of
Ordinances is hereby repealed and a new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be
codified as follows:
(A) Certificate of City Clerk; amendment. Within twenty days after a petition
is filed which contains the minimum required signatures, as set forth in
Section 7.03(A) above, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to
the petition's sufficiency. If the petition is insufficient, the Clerk's
certificate shall specify the particulars wherein the petition is
Ordinance No. 90 -3462
Page 2
defective. The Clerk shall also promptly send a copy of the certificate
to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified insufficient
may be amended once, provided, however, that one or more of the original
petitioners files a notice of intention to amend the original petition,
such notice to be filed with the City Clerk within two days after
receiving a copy of the certificate, and the petitioner also files a
supplementary petition upon additional papers within fifteen days after
receiving a copy of such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall
comply with the requirements of subsections B and C of Section 7.03.
Within fifteen days after a supplementary petition is filed, the City
Clerk shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition,
as amended and supplemented, and shall promptly send a copy of such
certificate to the petitioners by registered mail, as in the case of an
original petition. If a petition or amended petition is certified
sufficient, or if the petition or amended petition is certified
insufficient and one or more of the petitioners do not request Council
review under subsection B of this Section within the time prescribed, the
City Clerk shall promptly present the certificate to the Council.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions of this Ordinance are for
any reason declared illegal or void, then the lawful provisions of this Ordinance
which are severable from said unlawful provisions, shall be and remain in full
force and effect, the same as if the Ordinance contained no illegal or void
provisions.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with
the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Charter Amendment Ordinance shall be in full
force and effect from the time of final, passage and publication of this
Ordinance, as by law provided, unless within thirty (30) days of publication of
the ordinance a petition is signed by eligible electors of the City equal in
number to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular city
election, and said petition is filed with the Council, in which case the Council
shall submit the amending ordinance to the voters at a city election.
Passed and approved this 26th day of June, 1990.
ATTEST:a,«n
CITY -CLERK
Approved by
Attorney's Office
It was moved by Ambrisco and seconded by Horowitz that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x
x
x
Ambrisco
Courtney
Horowitz
Kubby
Larson
McDonald
Novick
First Consideration 6/12/90
Vote for passage: Ayes: Kubby, Larson, McDonald,
Novick, Ambrisco, Courtney, Horowitz. Nays: None. Absent:
None.
Second Consideration
Vote for Passage:
Date published 6/30/90
Moved by Ambrisco, seconded by Horowitz, that the rule
requiring ordinances tole considered and voted on for
passage at two council meetings prior to the meeting
at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the
second consideration and vote be waived and the
ordinance be voted upon for. final passage at this time.
Ayes: Larson, McDonald, Novick, Ambrisco, Courtney,.
Horowitz, Kubby. Nays: None. Absent: None.
y
ORDINANCE NO. 95 -3671
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IOWA CITY
CHARTER, SECTIONS 2.068 (MAYOR), 2.08C
AND 2.08E (APPOINTMENTS), 3.01A (NOMI-
NATION), 6.01 (LIMITATIONS ON THE
AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS),
AND 7.04D (PROCEDURE AFTER FILING), AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW
COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Charter provides for
the establishment of a Charter Review Commis-
sion at least once every ten years; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council did
appoint a nine member Commission for review of
the Charter on May 17, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Charter Review Commission
did meet twelve times for review of the Charter
and presented their recommendations to Council
on January 31,1995; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the
recommendations on February 14, 1995; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary forthe City Council
to adopt these recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. The Iowa City
Charter be hereby amended by:
a. Repealing Section 2.066 and adding a new
Section 2.0613 as follows:
B. The Mayor Is a voting member of the
Council, the official representative of
the City, presiding officer of the Council
and its policy spokesperson. The
Mayor shall present to the City no later
than February 28 an annual State of
the City message.
b. Repealing Section 2.08C and adding a new
Section 2.08C as follows:
C. The Council shall appoint the City At.
tomey.
c. Repealing Section 2.08E and adding a new
Section 2.08E as follows:
E. The Council shall fix the amount of
compensation, if any, of persons it
appoints and shall provide for the meth-
od of compensation of other City em.
ployees. All appointments and promo-
tions of City employees by City Council
and City Manager must be made ac-
cording to job-related criteria and be
m�
ow
Ordinance No. 95 -3671
Page 2
consistent with nondiscriminatory and
equal employment opportunity stan.
dards established pursuant to law.
d. Repealing Section 3.01A and adding a new
Section 3.01A as follows:
A. An eligible elector of a council district
may become a candidate for a council
district seat by filing with the city clerk
a valid petition requesting that his or
her name be placed on the ballot for
that office. The petition must be filed
not more than sixty -five (65) days nor
less than forty (40) days before the
date of the election and must be signed
by eligible electors from the candidate's
district equal In number to at least two
(2) percent of those who voted to fill
the same office at the last regular city
election, but not less than ten (10)
persons.
e. Repealing Section 6.01 and adding a new
Section 6.01 as follows:
The Council, by ordinance, shall pre-
scribe limitations on the amount of cam-
paign contributions made to a candidate for
election to Council by aperson as defined in
this Charter.
I. Repealing Section 7.04D and adding a new
Section 7.041) as follows:
D. Validity of signatures. A petition shall
be deemed sufficient for the purposes
of this article if it contains valid signa-
tures in the number prescribed by Sec -
lion 7.03 and is timely filed, even
though the petition may contain one or
more invalid signatures. A signature
shall be deemed valid unless it is not
the genuine signature of the qualified
elector whose name it purports to be,
or It was not voluntarily and knowingly
executed. A valid signature need not
be in the identical form In which the
qualified electors name appears on the
voting rolls, nor may a signature be
deemed invalid because the address
accompanying the name on the petition
Is different from the address for the
same name on the current voting rolls
If the qualified electors birth dale is
provided and is shown on the voting rolls.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
pads of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
R
Ordinance No. 95 -3671
Page 3
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section,
Provision or part of the Ordinance shall be ad-
judged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole orany section, provision or
Part thereof not adjudged Invalid or unconsli-
fulionai.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi•
nance shall be In offset after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 28th day of
March, 1995.
AYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
App ved by l
fly Attorney's t(fee
'4*Wwdu.wd
Ordinance No. 95 -3671
Page a
It was moved by Novick and seconded by rigatL that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
—.x—
_x -
x
x
x
I
Baker
Horowitz
Kubby
Lehman
Novick
Pigott
Throgmorton
First Consideration 2/28/95
Vote for passage: AYES: Kubby, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton,
Baker. HAYS: None. ABSENT: Horowitz, Lehman.
Second Consideration 3/7/95
Vote for passage: AYES: Baker, Horowitz, Kubby, Lehman, Novick,
Pigott, Throgmorton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 4/5/95
Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO. 05 -q1 U _.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IOWA CITY CHARTER, CHAPTER 1 (DEFINITIONS) AND SECTIONS
2.03 (ELIGIBILITY), 2,05 (COMPENSATION), 2.11 (COUNCIL ACTION), 2.12 (PROHIBITIONS), 3.01
(NOMINATION), 3.02 (PRIMARY ELECTION), 4.03 (ABSENCE; DISABILITY OF CITY MANAGER),
4.04 (DUTIES OF CITY MANAGER), 5.02 (APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL), 5.03 (RULES), 6.02
(DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES), 6.03 (DEFINITION), 6.04
(VIOLATIONS), 7.01 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), 7.02 (COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS;
AFFIDAVIT), 7.03 (PETITIONS; REVOCATION OF SIGNATURES), 7.04 (PROCEDURE AFTER
FILING), 7.05 (ACTION ON PETITIONS), 7.06 (RESULTS OF ELECTION), 8.01 (CHARTER
AMENDMENTS), AND 8.02 (CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION) AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Charter provides for the establishment of a Charter Review Commission at
least once every ten (10) years;
WHEREAS, the City Council did appoint a nine (9) member Commission to review the Charter on
March 16, 2004 in Resolution No. 04 -88;
WHEREAS, the Charter Review Commission met twenty -four (24) times to review the Charter and
held three (3) public hearings;
WHEREAS, the Charter Review Commission made its recommendations to Council on January 18,
2005;and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt said recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS
1. The "Definition" provision in the Charter is hereby amended by repealing the definition of
"ordinance" and adding the following new definition:
"Ordinance" means a City law of a general and permanent nature.
2. The "Definition" provision of the Charter is hereby amended by repealing the definition of
"measure" and adding the following new definition:
"Measure" except as provided in Article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or
motion.
3. Article II, entitled "City Council," Section 2.03, entitled "Eligibility," is hereby amended by repealing
2.03 in its entirety and adding the following new Section 2.03:
To be eligible to be elected to and to retain a Council position, a person must be an eligible elector of
Iowa City, and if seeking or elected to represent a Council District, must be an eligible elector of that
Council District.
4. Article II, entitled "City Council," Section 2.05, entitled "Compensation," is hereby amended by
repealing 2.05 in its entirety and adding the following new Section 2.05:
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the Mayor and the other Council
members. The Council shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December
immediately following a regular City election.
5. Article 11, entitled "City Council," Section 2.11, entitled "Council action," is hereby amended by
repealing 2.11 in its entirety and adding the following new Section 2.11:
Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires a majority vote of all the members
of the Council except as otherwise provided by State law.
6. Article 11, entitled "City Council," Section 2.12, entitled 'Prohibitions," Paragraph B is hereby
amended by repealing B in its entirety and adding the following new Paragraph B:
B. With the exception of the appointment of the chief of the police department and chief of the fire
department, which are subject to approval of the City Council, neither the Council nor its members may
dictate, in any manner, the appointment or removal of any person appointed by the City Manager.
However, the Council may express its views to the City Manager pertaining to the appointment or removal
of such employee.
Ordinance No. 05 -4152
Page 2
7. Article III, entitled "Nomination, Primary Election and Regular Election," Section 3.01, entitled
"Nomination," Paragraph A is hereby amended by repealing Paragraph A in its entirety and adding the
following new Paragraph A:
A. An eligible elector of a council district may become a candidate for a council district seat by filing
with the City Clerk a valid petition requesting that his or her name be placed on the ballot for that office.
The petition must be filed not more than sixty -five (65) days nor less than forty (40) days before the date
of the election and must be signed by eligible electors from the candidate's district equal in number to at
least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but not less
than ten (10) persons.
8. Article III, entitled "Nomination, Primary Election and Regular Election," Section 3.02, entitled
"Primary Election," Paragraph A is hereby amended by repealing Paragraph A in its entirety and adding
the following new Paragraph A:
A. If there are more than two candidates for a Council District seat, a primary election must be held
for that seat with only the qualified electors of that Council District eligible to vote. The names of the two
candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election are to be placed on the ballot
for the regular City election as candidates for that Council seat.
9. The title to Section 4.03 of Article IV is hereby amended by repealing the title in its entirety and
adding the following new title to Section 4.03:
Absence; disability of City Manager.
10. The title to Section 4.04 of Article IV is hereby amended by repealing the title in its entirety and
adding the following new title to Section 4.04:
Duties of City Manager
11. Article IV, entitled "City Manager," Section 4.04, entitled "Duties of city manager," Paragraph A Is
hereby amended by repealing Paragraph A in its entirety and adding the following new Paragraph A:
A. The City Manager shall be chief administrative officer of the City and shall:
(1) Insure that the laws of the City are executed and enforced.
(2) Supervise and direct the administration of City government and the official conduct of
employees of the City appointed by the City Manager including their employment, training,
reclassification, suspension or discharge as the occasion requires, subject to State law.
(3) Appoint the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire department with the
approval of the City Council.
(4) Supervise the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department, including their
suspension or discharge as the occasion requires. Such supervision shall not be subject to approval of
the City Council.
(5) Appoint or employ persons to occupy positions for which no other method of appointment is
provided by State law or this Charter.
(6) Supervise the administration of the City personnel system, including the determination of
the compensation of all City employees appointed by the City Manager subject to State law or this
Charter.
(7) Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the City, supervise all
purchases of materials and supplies, and assure that such materials and supplies are received and are of
specified quality and character.
(8) Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and undertakings of the City, and all
City -owned property including buildings, plants, systems, and enterprises, and have charge of their
construction, improvement, repair and maintenance except where otherwise provided by State law.
(g) Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans, drawings,
specifications and estimates for the City.
(10) Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and permits authorized by State law or
City ordinance and cause a record thereof to be maintained.
(11) Prepare and submit to the Council the annual budgets in the form prescribed by State law.
(12) Provide the Council an itemized written monthly financial report.
(13) Attend Council meetings and keep the Council fully advised of the financial and other
conditions of the City and its needs.
(14) See that the business affairs of the City are transacted in an efficient manner and that
accurate records of all City business are maintained and made available to the public, except as
otherwise provided by State law.
(15) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and professional assistance to Boards
Ordinance No. 05 -4152
Page 3
within limitations of the budget.
(16) Perform such other and further duties as the Council may direct.
12. Article V, entitled "Boards, Commission and Committees," Section 5.02, entitled "Appointment;
removal," is hereby amended by repealing Section 5.02 in its entirety and adding the following new
Section 5.02:
The Council shall, subject to the requirements of State law, seek to provide broad representation on
all Boards. The Council shall establish procedures to give at least thirty days' notice of vacancies before
they are filled and shall encourage applications by citizens. Council procedures for the removal of
members shall be consistent with State law.
13. Article V, entitled "Boards, Commission and Committees," Section 5.03, entitled "Rules," is
hereby amended by repealing Paragraph A in its entirety and adding the following new Paragraph A:
A. The Council shall establish rules and procedures for the operation of all Boards, which
must include but are not limited to, the adoption of by -laws and rules pertaining to open meetings and
open records.
14. Article VI, entitled "Campaign Contributions and Expenditures," Section 6.02, entitled "Disclosure
of contributions and expenditures," is hereby amended by repealing Section 6.02 In its entirety and
adding the following new Section 6.02:
The Council, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring the disclosure of the amount, source
and kind of contributions received and expenditures made by (1) each candidate for election to Council
and (2) any and all other persons, for the purpose of aiding or securing the candidate's nomination or
election.
15. Article VI, entitled "Campaign Contributions and Expenditures," Section 6.03, entitled "Definition,"
is hereby amended by repealing Section 6.03 in its entirety and adding the following new Section 6.03:
Within this article "contribution" shall be defined as that term is defined in Chapter 56 ( "Campaign
Finance ") of the Code of Iowa.
16. Article VI, entitled "Campaign Contributions and Expenditures," Section 6.04, entitled "Violations,"
is hereby amended by repealing Section 6.04 in its entirely and adding the following new Section 6.04:
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe: (1) penalties for the violation of the contribution limitations
and disclosure requirements it establishes pursuant to this section; and (2) when appropriate, conditions
for the revocation of a candidate's right to serve on Council if elected, consistent with State law.
17. Article VII, entitled "Initiative and Referendum," Section 7.01, entitled "General provisions," is
hereby amended by repealing Section 7.01 in its entirely and adding the following new Section 7.01:
A. Authority.
(1) Initiative. The qualified electors have the right to propose measures to the Council and, if
the Council fails to adopt a measure so proposed without any change in substance, to have the measure
submitted to the voters at an election.
(2) Referendum. The qualified electors have the right to require reconsideration by the Council
of an existing measure and, if the Council fails to repeal such measure, to have it submitted to the voters
at an election.
(3) Definition. Within this article, " measure" means all ordinances, amendments, resolutions
or motions of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of a permanent rather than
temporary character and (b) include a proposition enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law,
policy or plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration of a law, policy or plan
already enacted by Council.
B. Limitations.
(1) Subject matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall not extend to any of the
following:
(a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature,
(b) The City budget.
(c) The appropriation of money.
(d) The levy of taxes or special assessments.
(e) The issuance of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds.
(1) The letting of contracts.
(g) Salaries of City employees.
(h) Any measure required to be enacted by State or federal law.
(1) Amendments to this Charter.
Ordinance No. 05 -4
Page 4
(j) Amendments affecting the City Zoning Ordinance or the land use maps of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the district plan maps.
(k) Public improvements subsequent to City Council action to authorize acquisition of
property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public improvement, whichever occurs
earlier. "Public improvement" shall mean any building or construction work.
(2) Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall be filed within two years after the same
measure or a measure substantially the same has been submitted to the voters at an election.
(3) Council repeal, amendment and reenactment. No measure proposed by initiative petition and
adopted by the vote of the Council without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant to
this article, may for two years thereafter be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless
provision is otherwise made in the original initiative measure. No measure referred by referendum
petition and repealed by the vote of the Council without submission to the voters, or repealed by the
voters pursuant to this article, may be reenacted for two years thereafter except by vote of the people,
unless provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition.
C. Construction.
(1) Scope of power. It is intended that this article confer broad initiative and referendum
powers upon the qualified electors of the City.
(2) Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because it repeals an
existing measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new measure and (b) an initiative petition
may amend an existing measure.
(3) Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal a measure in whole or In
part.
D. Effect of filing petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not suspend or
Invalidate any measure under consideration. Such measure shall remain in full force and effect until its
amendment or repeal by Council pursuant to Section 7.05A or until a majority of the qualified electors
voting on a measure vote to repeal or amend the measure and the vote is certified.
E. City obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing measure in whole or
in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the City, its agencies or any person in reliance on
the measure during the time it was in effect.
18. Article VII, entitled "Initiative and Referendum," Section 7.02, entitled "Commencement of
proceedings; affidavit," is hereby amended by repealing Section 7.02 in its entirety and adding the
following new Section 7.02:
A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors, hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners," may
commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the City Clerk an affidavit stating they will
supervise the circulation of the petition and will be responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their
names and addresses and specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, and setting
out in full the proposed initiative measure or citing the measure sought to be reconsidered.
B. Affidavit. The City Clerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face It appears to have
signatures of one or more qualified electors. The City Clerk shall issue the appropriate petition forms to
the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted for fling. The City Clerk shall cause to be prepared
and have available to the public, forms and affidavits suitable for the commencement of proceedings and
the preparation of initiative and referendum petitions.
19. Article VII, entitled "Initiative and Referendum," Section 7.03, entitled "Petitions; revocation of
signatures," is hereby amended by repealing Paragraphs B, C, and E in their entirety and adding the
following new Paragraphs B, C, and E:
B. Form and content. All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially uniform in size
and style and must be assembled as one instrument. Each person signing shall provide, and the petition
form shall provide space for, the signature, printed name, address of the person signing and the date the
signature is executed. The form shall also provide space for the signer's birthdate, but a failure to enter a
birthdate shall not invalidate a signer's signature. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have
attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be
reconsidered. The petition filed with the City Clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the measure
being proposed or referred.
C. Affidavit of circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have attached to it
when filed an affidavit executed by a qualified elector certifying: the number of signatures on the paper,
that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures were affixed in his or her presence, that he or
she believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be and that
each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the measure proposed or sought to
Ordinance No. 05 -4152
Page 5
be reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by State
law.
E. Time for filing referendum petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty days after final
adoption by the Council of the measure sought to be reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more
than two years after such final adoption. The signatures on a referendum petition must be secured during
the sixty days after such final adoption; however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final
adoption, the signatures must be secured within six months after the date the affidavit required under
Section 7.02A was filed.
20. Article VII, entitled "Initiative and Referendum;' Section 7.04 entitled "Procedure after filing;' is
hereby amended by repealing Paragraphs A, B, and C in their entirely and adding the following new
Paragraphs A, B, and C:
A. Certificate of City Clerk; amendment. Within twenty days after a petition is filed which contains the
minimum required signatures, as set forth in Section 7.03.A above, the City Clerk shall complete a
certificate as to the petition's sufficiency. If the petition is insufficient, the Clerk's certificate shall specify
the particulars wherein the petition is defective. The Clerk shall also promptly send a copy of the
certificate to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified insufficient may be amended once,
provided,. however, that one or more of the original petitioners files a notice of intention to amend the
original petition. Such notice must be filed with the City Clerk within two days after receiving a copy of the
certificate, and the petitioner also must file a supplementary petition upon additional papers within fifteen
days after receiving a copy of such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall comply with the
requirements of subsections B and C of Section 7.03. Within fifteen days after a supplementary petition is
filed, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition, as amended and
supplemented, and shall promptly send a copy of such certificate to the petitioners by registered mail, as
in the case of an original petition. If a petition or amended petition is certified sufficient, or if the petition or
amended petition is certified insufficient and one or more of the petitioners do not request Council review
under subsection B of this Section within the time prescribed, the City Clerk shall promptly present the
certificate to the Council.
B. Council review. If a petition has been certified insufficient by the City Clerk and one or more of the
petitioners do not file notice of intention to amend it, or if an amended petition has been certified
insufficient by the City Clerk, one or more of the petitioners may, within two days after receiving a copy of
such certificate, file with the City Clerk a request that it be reviewed by the Council. The Council shall
review the certificate at its next meeting following the filing of such a request, but not later than thirty days
after the filing of the request for review, and shall rule upon the sufficiency of the petition.
C. Court review. To the extent allowed by law, Court review of the Council's actions shall be by writ
of certiorari.
21. Article VII, entitled "Initiative and Referendum;' Section 7.05, entitled "Action on petitions;' is
hereby amended by repealing Section 7.05 in its entirety and adding the following new Section 7.05:
A. Action by council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been determined sufficient, the
Council shall promptly consider the proposed initiative measure or reconsider the referred measure. If
the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure and fails to adopt a measure which is similar in
substance within sixty days, or if the Council fails to repeal the referred measure within thirty days after
the date the petition was finally determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or referred measure to
the qualified electors of the city as hereinafter prescribed. if at any time more than thirty days before a
scheduled initiative or referendum election the Council adopts the proposed initiative measure or adopts
a measure which is similar in substance or if the Council repeals a referred measure, the initiative or
referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred measure shall not be submitted to
the voters.
B. Submission to voters.
(1) Initiative. The vote of the City on a proposed measure shall be held at the regular city
election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the sixty
day period provided for consideration in Section 7.05A, provided that the initiative petition was filed no
less than 110 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the
Commissioner of Elections.
(2) Referendum. The vote of the City on a referred measure shall be held at the regular city
election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the thirty -
day period provided for reconsideration in Section 7.05A, provided that the referendum petition was filed
no less than 80 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to
the Commissioner of Elections. The Council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred
measure any time more than 120 days after the filing of the referendum petition with the City Clerk .
Ordinance No. 05 -4152r
Page 6
C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred measure shall be made available to the qualified
electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the city's expense in the manner required for "questions" in
Section 376.5 of the Iowa Code. The subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed measure
shall be indicated on the ballot.
22. Article VII, entitled "Initiative and Referendum," Section 7.06, entitled "Results of election," is
hereby amended by repealing Section 7.06 in its entirety and adding the following new Section 7.06:
A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative measure vote in its
favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results. The adopted measure shall
be treated in all respects in the same manner as measures of the same kind adopted by the Council,
except as provided in Section 7.01B(3). If conflicting measures are approved by majority vote at the
same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of
such conflict.
B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote in favor of
repealing the measure, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results.
23. Article VIII, entitled "Charter Amendments and Review," Section 8.01, entitled "Charter
amendments," is hereby amended by repealing Section 8.01 in its entirety and adding the following new
Section 8.01:
This Charter may be amended only by one of the following methods:
A. The Council, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the voters at a special city
election, and the proposed amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting.
B. The Council, by ordinance, may amend the Charter. However, within thirty (30) days of
publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the Code of Iowa
is filed with the council, the Council must submit the amending ordinance to the voters at a special city
election, and the amendment does not become effective until approved by a majority of those voting.
C. If a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the Code of Iowa is filed with the
Council proposing an amendment to the Charter, the Council must submit the proposed amendment to
the voters at a special city election, and the amendment becomes effective if approved by a majority of
those voting.
24. Article VIII, entitled "Charter Amendments and Review," Section 8.02, entitled "Charter review
commission," is hereby amended by repealing Section 8.02 in its entirety and adding the following new
Section 8.02:
The Council, using the procedures prescribed in Article V, shall establish a Charter Review
Commission at least once every ten years following the effective date of this Charter. The Commission,
consisting of at least nine members, shall review the existing Charter and may, within twelve months
recommend any Charter amendments that it deems fit to the Council. The Council shall either exercise its
power of amendment pursuant to Section 8.018 of the Charter on a matter recommended by the
Commission or submit such amendments to the voters in the form prescribed by the Commission, and an
amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting.
SECTION Ii. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III SEVERABILITY' If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Pas and approved this t qt., day of Marsh 2005.
AYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
py M. a , //Z qo'�-
ity Attorney's Office
s "aw,aaa�wnw"wi.aoo
Ordinance No. 05 -4152
Page 7
It was moved by @ i 1 e,i and seconded by Wilburn that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
y_
Bailey
X
Champion
X
Elliott
X
Lehman
x_
O'Donnell
X
Vanderhoef
_x
Wilburn
First Consideration - 211 jn5
Vote for passage: AYES: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef,
Wilburn. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 2/15/05
Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn,
Bailey. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Lehman.
Date published 3/7/05
W,
Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030
RESOLUTION NO. 07 -262
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR
TO PLACE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S HOME RULE CHARTER TO
CREATE A PERMANENT POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD BEFORE THE
QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AT THE NEXT
REGULAR CITY ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007
WHEREAS, a petition pursuant to Article Vill of the Home Rule Charter of Iowa City and section
372.11 of the Code of Iowa proposing to amend the City's Home Rule Charter by creating a
permanent police citizen review board was filed with the City Clerk on August 20, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa Supreme Court ordered that said proposed amendment be placed on the
ballot in Berent et al vs City of Iowa City and Objections Committee, No. 46/06 -1382 (Iowa,
August 31, 2007).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT: .
The Johnson County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to place the following
question before the qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa at the next regular
city election on November 6, 2007:
Shall the following public measure be adopted? Yes No
That Article V (Boards, Commissions and Committees), Subsection 5.01
(Establishment) of the Home Rule Charter of Iowa City, Iowa be amended by adding
the following underlined words:
With the excepijon of the Police Citizens Review Board, the Council may establish
Boards in addition to those required by State law and shall specify the title, duties,
length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The
Council may reduce or increase a Board's duties, transfer duties from one Board to
another or dissolve any Board, except as otherwise provided by State law or this
Charter.
I�
2.
3. The authority to subpoena witnesses.
Resolution No. 07 -262
Page 2
Passed and approved this 31st day of pugrrst , 2007.
MAYOR
AppFoyed by
ATTEST:
CITY-CLERK City Attorney's Office G
Elearwr /remegalagrmeasuredo D — 3! -07
Resolution No. nz_2L9
Page 3
It was moved by Rai 1 r3. and seconded by _ yanderhoef the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
g Bailey
x Champion
x Correia
x Elliott
x O'Donnell
x Vanderhoef
x Wilburn
Late Handouts — Handed out at 4/8/14 meeting
9 0 D 9
Li
Charter Review Commission Recommendations
January 27, 1995
The nine member Charter Review Commission held 12 meetings since May 17, 1994 to
review the City of Iowa City Charter. The Commission started with a Charter overview which
provided information about the Home Rule Act, city powers and city charters, and
organization of citygovernment. The Commissionthen discussed Charter provisions; reviewed
city staff input and recommendations; met with former council members and council
candidates; and held a public hearing to receive citizen input. The public hearing was
broadcast live on the government channel and phone calls were accepted.
The Charter Review Commission focused discussions on non - discrimination language,
campaign finance disclosure (follow up enforcement, discrepancy between local and state
requirements, and 850 limitation), elections (primary and general), and districts (number,
representation, neighborhoods).
The Charter Review Commission also solicited city staff input. They received five recommen-
dations from city department directors, agreeing to forward four of the recommendations to
council. At the Commission's request, City Attorney Woito attended three meetings to advise
the commission on elections and primary voting, campaign finance disclosure, and non-
discrimination provisions.
The Charter Review Commission met with former Council members and Mayors J. Balmer and
D. Courtney and former council candidates J, Smith and P. Egli on September 29, 1994 to
discuss campaign disclosure, four year terms of office, the mayoral selection process, council
compensation, and changing the present primary and general election systems. Former
council members W. Ambrisco and R. Larson also provided their written comments.
A public hearing was held on November 2, 1994 to receive public input, Rusty Martin
proposed establishing six council districts and an at -large mayor. Chris Randall stated that
council compensation should be increased. Four telephone calls were also taken during the
broadcasted public hearing commenting on district representation and neighborhoods.
The Charter Review Commission makesthefoilowing recommendations whichthe commission
believe to be non - substantive In nature and recommend Council adoption by ordinance rather
than submission to the voters:
Non - Discrimination
To add language to the Charter Section 2.08E to read, "Ail appointments and promotions of
city employees by City Council and City Manager must be made according to job - related
criteria and be consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards
established pursuant to law." Motion carried, 6/2.
The Commission noted the change to reaffirm the original spirit of the charter and re-
enforces language already in existence by city, state, and federal provisions. (Meetings:
7/14/94; 8/31/94)
Penalties (6.04)
To recommend to Council that they take action and establish penalties with regard to Section
6.04, Motion carried, 8/0.
The Commission referenced charter section 6.02 stating "The council may prescribe
procedures..." And 6.04 stating "The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe
penalties.., ", noting penalties were originally called for and never done. (Meetings:
11/30/94)
"Person" (6.01)
To change Section 6.01 to read, "The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the
amount of campaign contributions made to a candidate for election to Council by a person as
defined in this Charter." Motion carried 810,
The Commission noted the definition of person contained in the,.charter to include
individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, political party,
committee or any other legal entity. (Meetings:11 /30/94)
General Recommendation
To recommend to Council that the next Charter Review Commission be convened one year
after the next census. Motion carried, 9/0.
The Commission realized the growth of the city and the impact that growth has on the
size of districts; suggested charter review after the next census and establishment of
review to coincide with each ten year census thereafter. (Meetings: 12/8/94)
Staff Recommendations
To change Page 4, Section 2.06, Mayor., Subsection B., third line, replace "spokesman" with
"spokesperson." Motion carried, 8/0. (Meeting: 1/4/95)
To change Page 4, Section 2,08, Appointments., Subsection C., "The Council shall appoint
the City Attorney," Motion carried, 810. (Meeting: 1/4/95)
To change Page 6, Section 3.01, Nomination., Subsection A., last line in paragraph should
read "...not less than ton (10) persons." Motion carried, 8/0. (Meeting: 1 /4/95)
To change Page 17, Section 7.04, Procedure after filing, Subsection D. Validity of signatures.
Third line from bottom should read "...current voting rolls..." Motion carried, 810. (Meeting:
1/4/96)
Other key areas of discussion were:
Council /Manager Form. Moved and seconded to continue the Charter Review discussions
based on retaining the Council /Manager form of government. Motion carried, 9/0. (Meeting:
6/14/94)
City Manager Duties. Commission recognized the State Code lists City Manager duties and
agreed to retain the Charter section. (Meeting: 7/14/94)
2A
uy
Term of Office. (Four years per and no limit on number) Moved and seconded that the term
of office remain four years. Motion carried, 6/2, (Meetings: 7/14/94; 11/16/94)
Moved and seconded to move limitation of term of office to the resolved list. Motion carried,
7/1. (Meeting: 11/16/94)
Recall. Moved and seconded to remove "recall" sea discussion item. Motion carried, 6/0.
(Meeting: 6/29/94)
Initiative and Referendum. Moved and seconded to move initiative and referendum to the
resolved list. Motion carried, 8/0. (Meetings: 6/29/94; 11/16/94)
Mayor Selection. Moved and seconded to move mayor selection to the resolved list. Motion
carried, 711. (Meeting: 11/16/94)
Council Compensation. Moved and seconded to move council compensation to the resolved
list. Motion carried, 6/2. (Meeting: 11116/94)
Campaign Finance Disclosure. (Follow-up enforcement; discrepancy with state; and $50
limitation) Moved and seconded to recommend to Council that they take action and establish
penalties with regard to Section 6.04. Motion carried, 8/0, (Meetings: 7/14/94; 11/16/94;
11/30/94)
General Voting. Moved and seconded that in the general election for every seat that is open,
every voter votes for every seat. Motion carried, 6/2. (Meeting: 11/30194)
Elections. (Primary voting, 2.10 Vacancies) Moved and seconded to retain Charter Section
3.02 Primary Election. Motion carried, 5/4. (Meetings: 7/14/94; 11/30/94; 12/8/94)
Districts. (Number, representation; neighborhood) and Council Size (number) Moved and
seconded to retain the current system of 7 council members with 4 at large and 3 residential
district. Motion carried, 6/3. (Meeting: 12/8/94)
Staff Recommendation.
Moved and seconded to not change Page 6, Section 2.12, Prohibitions., Subsection B., third
line, sentence should read "However, the council or its members may express..." Motion
carried, 8/0. (Meeting: 1/4195)
By the 1994/95 Charter Review Commission:
John McDonald, Chair
Patt Cain
Paul Egli
Mary Geasland
Jeff McCullough
shared1cc1erk\ji1h3.7mk,) ks
Kathy Penningroth
Ann Rhodes
Clayton Ringgenberg
Craig Willis
9E
i-�b
REPORT OF THE IOWA CITY
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
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 "reconnnend[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. hi furtherance of its
charge the Commission began meeting in mid -May. The Conmrission 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 comments 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 Kan', 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 Commission'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 recormnendation 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 Commrission 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 reconunended 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 Cormnission 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 recommendation to amend Section 6.02 is to make it more clear and
readable.
2
11. The recommmendation 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 recommends 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
91
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 recormnended 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 begriming 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 recommmendations to the
voters or use its power, pursuant to Section 8.01(B), to adopt the
recommendations by ordinance.
4
Other Matteis 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 recommending any term
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
E
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 an-rending 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.
2
Creation of a Citizens' Guide to the Charter. hi 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 govenmient is working, and how they can help their govenunent 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 cormnunity
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 recommmendations 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
William F. Sueppel, Chain • , 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
6
§ƒ
�n
§2\ {
f E§
,
§ k}
_m
\7
aƒ
§�
§{
�8
ƒq $
77 \
k
r
\ \$
«R;
/\
a
■
[IF
[&
ƒi
�ƒ
ƒt
0
�
�
F
�
.�
�