HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-22-2014 Charter Review CommissionC ATJ 1:11TITAPIrejtill I &S1 •►
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
7:30 AM-8:30 AM
Harvat Hall, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
2. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR
AMENDED
a. Minutes of the meeting on 04/8114
b. Correspondence
1. Rod Sullivan
2. Christine Stewart
3. REVIEW CHARTER
a. Specific sections to be addressed:
1. Preamble
2. Definitions
3. Article 1
b. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows)
4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION
5. TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (2"" and fourth Tuesday of
each month)
May 13
May 20
June 10
June 24
July 8
July 22
6. ADJOURNMENT
Charter Review Commission
April 8, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 2014 — 7:30 A.M.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw,
Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Karen Kubby
Staff present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
None
INTRODUCTIONS:
Chairperson Chappell welcomed everyone and thanked them for applying to serve on the
Commission. He then asked if they could go around the table and introduce themselves, and
perhaps share something about themselves, as well.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE:
Regular meeting days and times — Chappell started off the discussion with future
meeting schedules. He noted that after receiving everyone's best times and days, the
early morning slot seems to be the best for all. The hope is to meet every other week,
on the weeks that the Council is not meeting. Meetings would be scheduled for the
second and fourth Tuesday of each month, starting at 7:30 A.M. Chappell then asked if
Members would turn in any long-term absences, such as vacations, to the City Clerk so
that scheduled can be adjusted as needed.
Members then discussed the meeting times and days, with it being noted that the early -
morning meetings probably won't be best for public input. This would mean having
special meetings in the evening hours. Karr asked for some clarification on the length of
the regular meetings. Chappell noted that they should probably reserve the room from
7:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., just to have that extra time as needed. Karr stated that the
meetings will typically be held in Harvat Hall, allowing them more space for others to
attend.
Chappell continued, noting that future meetings will have a more in-depth agenda,
showing what section of the Charter will be reviewed. This will give the public more
information in case they have a specific section they wish to attend.
Summer Schedule — Chappell then spoke about summer schedules. Karr noted that
she has received some individual schedules, but if others would like to contact her with
their information, she can then come up with a summer schedule.
Charter Review Commission
April 8, 2014
Page 2
SELECT CHAIR PRO TEM
Chappell noted that the next item is to elect a Chair Pro tem. He added that he plans to attend
every meeting, but that you never know what might come up. His role is basically to keep the
process moving and to keep them following the agenda each meeting. Sullivan nominated
Melvin Shaw as Chair Pro tem; seconded by Schantz. Motion carried 8-0; Kubby absent.
DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS — Karr noted that Members have received a lot of including,
including three past Commission minutes from 1974-75, 1984-85, 2004-05, as well as the final
reports to the City Council from each of these past Commissions. Also included for Members to
review is the original Charter and the amendments to the Charter. Karr noted that Dilkes will
review the current Charter and the Citizens Guide to the Charter with them shortly. Karr stated
that as they move through their meetings, any other documentation or materials for reference
that are needed can certainly be supplied. She added that Members will receive a packet prior
to each meeting. This led to a discussion about how Members will receive these packets —
whether electronically or via mail. A question was asked about the agenda, and Karr explained
that the meeting packet will contain the agenda for that particular upcoming meeting, as well as
any corresponding documentation. Chappell asked if anyone would have trouble receiving
these electronically, especially since they will be meeting every other week. Vanderhoef noted
that she would like to have a paper copy and that she will come down to City Hall and pick it up.
Karr noted that she will need each Members' email address so that she can send their packet to
the correct address.
Chappell noted that as Members become familiar with this information and documentation, they
should note that as they go through the minutes, it really does track along with the Charter quite
well. He noted that there will most likely be some of the very same concerns raised as in the
past, and that Members can read how issues were addressed in the past. The final reports then
are good summaries of what took place during that Commission's tenure. For those who have
no experience with the Charter, the Citizens Guide to the Charter can be very helpful, according
to Chappell. Chappell continued, noting that staff will be present at each meeting to help them
with any questions they have, and he encouraged Members to ask questions and ask for
clarification as needed.
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CHARTER:
At this point Dilkes gave Members a brief overview of the Charter. She noted that having a
basic understanding of what "home rule" means is a good start, and she briefly explained what
this means. "Home rule" gives the City the power to legislate and act in ways that it determines
are in the best interests of the City and its citizens, unless the State has expressly preempted
them from doing so, such as cities do not have the power to tax. This is something that is
expressly prohibited by State Code. Dilkes continued, stating that issues such as election laws
are also prescribed by the State, and therefore the City must follow these rules. Dilkes then
spoke about the Home Rule Charter. She noted that there are a number of ways cities can
organize themselves under the State Code. Iowa City uses the Home Rule Charter, giving them
more latitude in setting their own form of government. She continued to explain the details of
the Home Rule Charter and how it applies to Iowa City. Dilkes reviewed briefly Articles I and II,
noting that II deals with the make-up of the Council. Iowa City has seven Council Members, for
example. The City is divided into three Districts — A, B, and C — each with a seat, and four at -
large seats on the Council. Of these seven seats, one is selected by the other Members to be
the Mayor.
Charter Review Commission
April 8, 2014
Page 3
Dilkes continued her explanation, noting the various appointments that the City Council makes.
The three employees appointed by the Council include the City Manager, the City Attorney, and
the City Clerk. The Council also appoints the members of the various boards and commissions
that it oversees as well. Continuing through the various Articles, Dilkes explained the inner -
workings of the City government and how the various departments are set up. She noted those
sections of the Home Rule Charter that are set by State Code, noting the Berent case that came
out of Iowa City and went before the Supreme Court. Dilkes briefly touched on the hiring of the
Police Chief and the Fire Chief and how the Charter covers this. Basically the Charter allows for
the Council to set policy, and the City Manager's job is then to administer and execute this
policy.
Continuing through the Articles, Dilkes spoke about how the Council appoints to boards and
commissions. State Code does call for certain commissions, such as the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and then there are others that the Council chooses to create, such as the Parks
and Recreation Commission. The Citizens Police Review Board is the only board required by
the Charter, according to Dilkes. Speaking to Article VI, Dilkes noted that the Council has the
authority to set campaign contribution limits. She gave Members some history behind this limit,
noting that at one point it was eliminated because of a holding of the Eighth Circuit Court. When
this case went to the Supreme Court, the Council set the limit at $50, which is where it is
currently. Dilkes continued to speak to some of the issues with cities having the power to create
initiative and referendum provisions. She explained what this allows citizens to do within their
cities, such as collecting signatures on a petition and then presenting that to the Council on an
issue. This then forces the Council to either enact what the petition has stated, or put the issue
on a ballot for public consideration. Dilkes continued to touch on various initiative and
referendum issues, giving Members examples of such. One example given was the 21-
ordinance vote, which was by initiative and referendum. Dilkes then explained how when a
petition is received, her office reviews it and then the City Clerk's office has to verify the
signatures. If a petition falls short of the required signatures, for example, the petitioner has a
second chance to gather the required number.
In Article Vill, Dilkes noted that this section deals with Charter amendments and review. She
covered the various ways that the Charter can be amended, such as by Council ordinance or
citizen petition, and further explained how such processes take place. The final section that
was reviewed dealt with the Charter Review Commission itself. Dilkes noted that the important
thing to remember is that the Commission's recommendations to the City Council must either be
adopted by the Council, or they must be put on the ballot.
STRUCTURE:
Identification of Issues — Chappell noted that this section will show what they plan to
do over the next year as they meet to review the Charter. Basically they will be
reviewing the Charter, line by line, in as much detail as they need, in order to complete
the review. He noted that the last time they did this, they had what they called 'tentative
approval' on those sections they had basically completed their review on.
Public Input Process — Chappell noted that there will be public input throughout their
review process. He noted that they will look at the time for such input, and that if
Members hear anything about such issues to let the Commission know. He added that
they can have special meetings for public input, ones where the public is allowed to state
whatever they want about the Charter and there is no feedback from the Commission.
Or, on the other hand, they can have more interactive -type meetings, where smaller
Charter Review Commission
April 8, 2014
Page 4
groups are used to discuss specific issues. Vanderhoef asked if there will be public time
at each of the Commission's regular meetings. Chappell responded that they will have
this on upcoming agendas. Karr noted that they will also be going live on the City's web
site where they can solicit input from the public immediately. This correspondence will
then be shared with Members in their meeting packets. Also noted, there is a dedicated
email address: citycharter oDiowa-city.org and there will be a press release out soon on
this, according to Karr. Karr then asked Members when they would like to receive their
packets. She asked if a Friday distribution would work for the Tuesday morning
meetings. Members agreed to this, and Karr noted that they would do some electronic
testing and would also go live with the press release on this, as well. Chappell noted
how each of them may have conversations with others during the day and the topic of
the Charter might arise. He suggested they encourage people to share their ideas via
the web site or through email, so that everyone on the Commission can hear what they
have to say. Dilkes reminded Members that now that they are a formal Commission, a
quorum of them cannot talk to each other or have a meeting without it being properly
noticed. She explained that such conversations should take place during these
meetings, that Members can talk to each other individually, but that five of them cannot
be communicating simultaneously, unless it is at a public meeting that has been properly
noticed. This can be carried over to electronic communication, as well, and she further
explained this. It was further suggested that Members send any electronic
communications through the City Clerk, so that she can distribute it to all of the
Members. A question was asked about whether a Member should respond to an email
that has been received by just them and not the entire Commission. Dilkes stated that
the Member can choose to share this with the rest of the Members or not. Karr stated
that if a Member should respond, it is best to 'cc' her so that she can copy the
correspondence for the rest of the group and have it in the next packet.
Members continued to discuss how to handle email correspondence. Chappell noted
that basically any email related to this Commission is public record, if asked for, no
matter what email address it is sent to or responded from. Chappell then spoke to public
comment times, stating that typically at their meetings, they complete their work first and
then ask for public comment. It was noted that they should probably have some rules on
this, such as public input should be limited to five minutes, which is what the Council
does. Karr stated that typically the Council has public comment closer to the beginning
of their agenda, and then they move on with their agenda, and then have public
comment time again at the end of the meeting, if it's needed. She added that with the
Commission's short agenda, she doesn't believe they need to have public comment in
there twice. Karr stated that they could post this information on the web site so that
those interested in addressing the Commission are aware of this beforehand. A
question was raised about this public input, whether it will be just comments received or
an exchange between Members and the public. Dilkes noted that if the issue raised is
not on that day's agenda, the Commission cannot engage with the public. The issue
would need to be put on a future agenda, and properly noticed to the public. Members
briefly discussed how they might handle such interactions with the public.
In looking at the next meeting in two weeks (April 22), Chappell suggested that Members
start to read through the Charter. He stated that they might want to keep a list of specific
items that they want further information or discussion on. On the next agenda, Chappell
stated that they would most likely have the Preamble, Definitions, and Section I to
discuss.
Charter Review Commission
April 8, 2014
Page 5
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion
carried 8-0; Kubby absent.
Charter Review Commission
April 8, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
o
a
NAME
EXP.
w
v
a
4/1/15
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O/
Kubby
E
Mark
411/15
X
Schantz
Melvin
411115
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
Moyer
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
Vanderhoef
X = Present
O/E = Absent/Excused
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting N/M = Not a Member at this time
0 = Absent
Marian Karr M(6)
From:
Marian Karr
Sent:
Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
'Rod Sullivan'
Cc:
Council
Subject:
RE: Charter Ideas
Thank you for your email. This letter will be forwarded to the Charter Review Commission for consideration during their
review.
Marian K. Karr, MMC
City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Rod Sullivan [mailto:rodsullivan@mchsi.comj
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:32 PM
To: Council
Subject: Charter Ideas
This correspondence will become a public record.
Dear Council:
I applied to serve on the Iowa City Charter Review Commission. Just as I suspected, I was not selected to serve. I will
admit, I was surprised that I was one of only 8 of the 26 applicants that received ZERO votesl
In all sincerity, I think I had a lot to offer this Commission. I'm a 30 year resident. I spend more time Sin the weeds of the
structure and function of local governments than almost anyone I know. I live this stuff.
Despite not getting the Commission nod, I still have several changes I'd like to see. Here are a few of the major items:
1. Iowa City should maintain the size of the Council at seven. Maintain a balance between At -Large councilors and
councilors representing Wards.
(There should be either three or four Wards; no more, no less.) A directly elected Mayor shall serve in one of the At -
Large seats,
Rationale: A Council smaller than seven lacks representation; larger becomes unwieldy. A mix of At -Large and Ward
representation balances geographic diversity with the ability to elect the best people regardless of where they live.
While the Mayor holds no particular power relative to other councilors, she/he Is the face of the city, and should be
chosen by the people.
2.Only Ward residents get to vote for candidates running to represent those Wards.
Rationale: Voting In Iowa City has always been too confusing.
3. Eliminate the Council Primary; instead, institute instant run off voting (IRV).
Rationale: How many times have we seen a non -serious candidate gather enough signatures, thus forcing an expensive
primary? In addition, with IRV voters could exercise both their heads and their hearts while voting. Often two similar
candidates split the vote, handing the election to a candidate that most voters wanted to finish last. IRV allows your vote
to be recorded in exactly such a way.
4. Put all city offices on the general election ballots with governor and president. Stagger it so that the Mayor, an At -
Large seat, and 2 Ward seats are elected in Presidential years. Then elect 2 At -Large seats and a Ward seat each
Gubernatorial year.
Rationale: Turnout in municipal elections is AWFUL. Turnout in Statewide elections is much better. If we want people to
vote, this is the way. It would also decrease costs.
5. The Iowa City definition of "qualified" electors flies in the face of Iowa's Election Day voter registration law. This must
be changed to include all eligible voters.
Rationale: I believe this is illegal, and should be challenged in court by the ACLU. It would be easier and nicer if Iowa City
simply fixed it.
6. Allow for citizens to petition for elections in which they could hold votes of no confidence in the City Manager, City
Attorney and Chief of Police.
Rationale: These positions have a tremendous impact on our civil rights, yet we have virtually zero say in their
employment. Right now, to fire a Police Chief, you would need to elect 4 councilors who would vote to fire the City
Manager unless he decides to fire the Police Chief. It ain't gonna happen.
So why not allow the public to weigh in? Even if the results were non -binding, the public should be able to speak out.
7. Petitions should be able to address issues of state and federal law.
Rationale: There is no compelling reason NOT to allow the public to speak its' mind. Requirements are already high (25%
of the turnout of the last election, or 2,500 minimum). If enough eligible electors sign a petition, their issue should be
heard. Iowa City may not be able to do much about the issue, but at least the City has not muted the voices of its'
citizens.
8. Increase Council pay to at least $25,000 per year.
Rationale: Under the current system, only two groups of people can really afford to serve and serve well - wealthy folks
and/or retired folks. By paying better, we could attract a more diverse set of candidates. This would also allow some
workers to go part time and focus more energy on Council business. Councilors who really objected to that level of
compensation could always donate the pay to the library, parks, or another worthy cause.
Those are my thoughts for Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Rod Sullivan
2326 E. Court St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-7199
03.2544
From:
Marian Karr
Sent:
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:44 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Direct Election of Mayor on Ballot?
From: Marian Karr
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 4:44 PM
To: 'stewartchristine06O@gmaii.com'
CC: Council
Subject: Direct Election of Mayor on Ballot?
Thank you for your email. The City Attorney and myself will staff the Commission which will begin meeting in April. All
meeting agendas and materials will be posted on the City website, and you may subscribe under E-Subscriptions on the
City site:
http://www.iowa-city.org/icgov/apps/subscribe/
Within the next few weeks the site will include the Charter, the Citizens Guide to the Charter, past minutes of previous
Commissions, as well as the names of the past members. Agenda and meeting packets for all future meetings will be
located on the site.
You will note that Article Vill of the Charter addresses how the charter can be amended
Marian K. Karr, MMC
City Clerk
From: Christine Stewart[maiito:stewartchristine06o@gmaii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:17 PM
To: Council
Subject: Direct Election of Mayor on Ballot?
Dear Iowa City Council:
Back in my student days, I learned that Iowa City and Sioux City are the only cities in Iowa that do not allow its
citizens to directly elect their mayor. I did a little research just the other day and was surprised to learn this is
no longer true. Sioux City voted In 2006 to have the citizens directly elect their mayor. So it appears now Iowa
City stands alone in the state of Iowa in not allowing direct election of the Mayor.
Could someone on your staff tell me why the City Council cannot do the same thing here? Waiting for a
decade for a charter review process seems less democratic than just letting the people vote on the mayor
election issue. The appointment by the current Council of several unelected Charter Review members (past
councilors, retired City Manager) that perhaps have a direct interest in maintaining the status quo does not
guarantee the mayoral election issue will be even dealt with in whatever new charter draft they come up
with. And I assume the citizens do not vote to approve the new Charter after the committee finishes its work,
that it is instead approved by the Council that appointed the members? With this system of self -perpetuation,
perhaps it is no surprise that the Mayor election issue and other representation issues were not dealt with in
all these intervening decades.
I am sure I do not understand it completely, but this entire Charter Review process seems another way to
obstruct the citizens of Iowa City from deciding their own representatives directly. I can't imagine why the
governing class at the time (the 60's?) came up with this particular charter system, unless they didn't trust the
wisdom of the people to elect their own mayor and also feared the alderman/district representative
system. They diluted direct geographical representation by having the entire city vote on district
representatives after a primary (if held). I have never heard of another municipal governance system like Iowa
City's. Ironically, although we are citizens of one of the most highly educated cities in the country, the original
charter writers seemed to have very little confidence in the ability of Iowa City residents to govern themselves
without a lot of these built in "safeguards' (obstacles).
My question: Is there some reason why this mayor election issue just cannot be put on the next general
election ballot for the people to decide as it was done in Sioux City?
In addition, could someone direct me to any historical documents which might exist that list the original
Charter members and any background/history on their reasoning for creating such a system? I have to believe
there was some reason for it, and would like background on it. I would like to know the names and titles of
the original members to discern whether they might have been from Iowa City's governing "elite" class at the
time (University professors, attorneys, League of Women Voters, etc.) and might have been fearful of the
wisdom of the "unwashed masses"? Are minutes available online of past Charter Review committees through
the decades so I could view their thoughts on why they maintained this system? I am curious why so many
handpicked committee members decided to maintain the system, whether the issue was thoughtfully debated
or whether they were just there to rubber stamp the status quo.
I am curious and would appreciate a response by you or your legal aides. Thank you for your service.
Christine Stewart, Iowa City
Marian Karr
From: City of Iowa City <webmaster@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:12 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: Charter Review Commission beginning deliberations, seeks public input
Contact: Marian Karr
Contact Phone: (319) 356-5041
Charter Review Commission beginning deliberations, seeks public input
Issued by: City Clerk
Mailing List(s): General City News
Originally Posted 4/17/2014 4:12:08 PM
Iowa law allows cities to choose from among eight 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 Nov. 15, 1973, the
citizens of Iowa City chose to be governed by a Home Rule Charter and the first Charter was adopted on Jan. 2, 1976.
The Iowa City Charter provides that the City Council establish a Charter Review Commission at least once every ten
years for the purpose of reviewing the Charter and reporting to the City Council. A new Commission was recently
established and must report to the City Council no later than April 1, 2015.
Members of the Commission are: Andy Chappell (Chair), Steve Atkins, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin
Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan and Dee Vanderhoef.
The Commission is beginning its deliberations on the review and possible amendments of the Iowa City Charter and is
requesting public input. Electronic comments may be submitted to:
citvcharter(@iowa-city. o rq.
Written comments can be addressed to:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Marian-karrKDiowa-city.orci
All written and electronic correspondence is a public record, will be distributed to the Charter Review Commission at their
next meeting and permanently archived as a public record.
All Charter Review Commission meetings are open to the public, and posted on the City website
http://www.ic(iov.org/apps/boards/. Individuals may subscribe to receive all meeting information by using E-subscriptions
on the City website at the http://www.iowa-city.org/icgov/apps/subscribe/. Information about the Charter and the
Commission is available at www.icgov.org/citVcharter.
View this article on the ICGov Web Site: http://www.iogov.org/apps/news/?newslD=9558
This media release was sent to: marian-kart(Mlowa-city.orn
-Do not reply directly to this a -mail) It is produced from an automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you have a question or comment
about this information, please contact the individual(s) listed In the release.
• Unsubscribe or edit your subscription details.
• Visit our lobs page for employment opoortunilies.
• View more news from the City of Iowa Cilv.
p m
10 npNN
(Tp
C
a
V1NPN
m
VI
Y
N y pHmY1
onv
M
rl
*�
m
N
M
O NN�Iam
£
ryryqq
y� �m�rNN
N
lL
'� motinm
LL Nm��m
N
Q
.-�
rq�
N
O
M
P w na-.m
r m"aNN
m
a
v
1%1 ptimlV
T'�
T
N
�
W
.Ni
N
N
m
v
c
�
a
3
Y
a
N
co
M
h
N
L
a�
E
E
m
0
m
0
m
M
Of
N
N
N
m
a
c
o
o
x
E
00
141
T
O
N
V1
r
ri
N
a
fn
N
6
1
00
N
Q
a
""
r
N
£ 6eW - LZ jdv oT - b 6eW LT - TT AeW bZ - 8T 6eW T£ - SZ APW
E
Q
rL
MH.PVN
y�
m
LL a-.mN
a
N
F
r M�.N+Nm
Y
N
iv 3 Nm�"�m
w
a
."7`�ery
1�
•i
N
N
t
Ln
O NtiNN
�OMO1�
N
LL
q
V1 NpNf�V
LL 'OM.RN
tO
^
Y
M
�-1
O
N
N
N
V
V1NQN
Q
N y p.rgN
3 ..N
MOnN
'TN
O "M=N
£
ry
VI � tiNN
N
O
Ln
'
•i
N
M
m
9
j
N
C
Q
00
N
N
m
m
a
v
v
v
�
�
F
e
e
0
m
0
M
M
�y
n
n
m
a
F
�O
M
fj
CII�qq
N
61
H
N
M
�
��v-�J
a
Y
w
n
g
N
N
N
00
L - T un[ bT - Bun[ TZ - ST un[ 8Z - ZZ nn[ S In[ - R un[
L
�i ry e�n
T
(O
t
..rvry
a
j
�
Y
< � npiNN
m
d 3 ..nri
N
M
1p
Ln
W
aq
N
N
a _.min
onv-.
T
m
�
a
a
o
IL
=
'2 ry
p
00
N
Q
T
L
N
M
w
N
N
M
.0
�
v
0
0
�
L
C
�
W
�
N
Q
N
N
M
T
m
a
v
v
t
F
E
E
o
�0
M
m
�
ri
Ln
r
00
•i
N
N
m
a
C
F
H
M
n
N
N
O
w
N
'n
L
aC a
N
—
C
n
H
N
N
O
S IBC - 6Z unC ZT - 9 IBC 6T - £T IBC 9Z - OZ hC Z 6nV - LZ IBC