Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-27-2014 Charter Review CommissionCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:30 AM Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED a. Minutes of the meeting on 05/13/14 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF 4. REVIEW CHARTER a. Specific sections to be addressed: • Preamble • Definitions 9 Article II b. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) 6. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6. PUBLIC COMMENT TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second and fourth Tuesday of each month) June 10 June 24 July 8 July 22 August12 August 26 8. ADJOURNMENT son M-ArA Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2014 — 7:30 A.M. HARVA T HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes (left 8:05), Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None a. Minutes of the Meeting on 04/22/14 — Chairperson Chappell asked if there was any discussion of the April 22 meeting minutes. Sullivan moved to adopt the April 22, 2014 meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Dilkes noted that Members received in their packets this week the model charter and the guide for charter commissions. She added that this is the eighth edition of the model charter. Karr apologized about the electronic glitch during the packet distribution. She reminded Members that there are two ways to get these packets, either via the link she sends or if they subscribe to City notices they will receive it as soon as it's available. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: * Preamble — Chairperson Chappell began the discussion with the Preamble section, noting that they talked about potentially making some adjustment to the word 'citizen' or at least having further discussion about this. Use of the word 'shall' was also part of their continuing discussion. Chappell asked if anyone had anything they wanted to add at this point. Schantz noted that he did spend some time reviewing this since the last meeting and has come up with a preamble for them to discuss. He added that it is more in form like the preamble to the model charter. He stated that he believes it focuses more on what a preamble is basically about. Schantz stated that he will get his revision to Karr for distribution to all of the Members. * Definitions — No discussion. * Article II — Chappell began the discussion by stating that this section is fairly large and that they may not get through all of it at today's meeting. He suggested they take the first five sections, which talk about Council, and start their discussion. He asked if someone would volunteer to read the first two articles, and Sullivan did so. Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 2 The review began with Sections 2.01 and 2.02. Chappell noted that he believes Iowa City is unique with four at -large districts. Sullivan noted that this is the only part of the Charter that gives any guidance as to how the districts are set up, other than they are basically of equal population. He suggested that it might be helpful to have some more guidance as to how these districts are established. Kubby shared what it is like to run in a district seat and the challenges with a campaign. She stated that the system is not easily accessible at times. However, she does like the idea of having true districts and still having the four at -large seats, as well. Chappell then spoke to the number of council members. He stated that someone had suggested an increase, and Dilkes stated that it has to be an odd number. Chappell stated that he believes seven to be a good number. Sullivan added that a reason to add seats would be if it became obvious that there was a strong sense from the community that more members were needed. He does not, however, believe that they currently need to add seats. Vanderhoef agreed, stating that she too believes the current number of Councilors is sufficient. Atkins spoke to the fact that the County ran three Board Members for a long time before going to the current five. Chappell asked if anyone had any strong feelings about changing the number of council members. Schantz spoke to having nine members, for example, giving examples of how this number could work. Kubby noted that when there are too many members it can have a negative effect to getting things done. Sullivan asked if there is any interest in changing the districts, where perhaps five of them come from districts, with two at - large. Kubby stated that it does not make sense to her, that districts would be too large under this scenario. Vanderhoef asked Atkins if during his time as City Manager if he ever saw a Councilor that was only interested in their district. He stated that he does not believe this makes a big difference, that these members are elected at -large and function pretty much the same. Kubby asked if there is a difference between award' and a 'district.' Members briefly discussed how typically large cities have wards that they are responsible for, and that these typically have a fairly large population in each ward. Shaw asked how frequently districts are redrawn and just what this would entail. He also asked about councilor term limits, and whether these would change. Karr stated that districts are redrawn after each federal Census (ten years). She explained this process and how the Council then adopts an ordinance to adopt the new districts. Sullivan asked how it would be handled if they did in fact make any changes to the electoral system, if these would go into effect during the next City election or not. Karr and Dilkes noted that without more specifics it would be hard to fully answer this question. Atkins gave some background information on charters and how electoral changes might occur. Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 3 Chappell asked if there is anyone who does not want districts, that wants seven at -large members. Sullivan stated that he is not inclined to go with something like this, unless there are strong public feelings toward such. He does not feel very strongly personally that the current set-up is bad. Stone noted that one extreme would be to have all seven at -large, and the other would be seven or however many districts and seats. She does not believe that they need fewer members, and the next option of nine or 11 does not seem to be necessary at this point either. Stone added that the hybrid system they have with their districts and at -large seats appears to be the best of both worlds. Chappell agreed that he likes the four (at large) / three (district) split they currently have. Shaw asked if it makes a difference where there are three districts, basically a smaller section, compared to the four at -large, and whether this creates a stronger debate for those in specific districts. Karr clarified how this works with a primary election narrowing the candidates from districts. Kubby noted that this is where the confusion lies with this system. Karr then responded to Members' questions regarding elections and primaries. Kubby followed up with where the differences lie in district versus at -large seats in the elections. Atkins further clarified how districts are set up, noting they are say 20,000 each, and are strictly a 'nose count.' Districts are then drawn up according to this Census count. Sullivan stated that the more they talk about the system in Iowa City, the more he sees where some of these quirks could be a barrier to participation, as noted previously by Kubby. Shaw asked if there have been any candidates or councilors who have asked for expanded districts. Karr stated that she is not aware of anyone having broached this subject. Vanderhoef gave a brief history of how the City began organizing neighborhoods back in the mid-90s in order to bring people closer together to function as a group. This can help bring some 'governance' to that neighborhood, and give them an awareness of the City government, as well. Schantz added that the Near Northside Neighborhood works well, as does the Downtown Association, to get things done. He added that in his own particular part of town, he has not heard of a neighborhood association. Craig spoke up at this point, saying that she likes the system as it currently is. She was Council Member Dobyns' campaign manager, and he ran as a district seat. She noted that she found that having to explain the 'hybrid' process helped to get people more interested in City government. She added that she does not believe the current system has ever kept voters from participating, especially those that have a strong interest in doing so. Members continued to discuss the district and at -large issue, with debate over whether the current system is confusing or not easily accessible to voters. Sullivan added that people do get confused by these issues, that they don't always understand who or what they are voting for. The general perception is that politics are hard to understand. Chappell spoke to some of the perceptions around voting and those true barriers to this. He added that many just do not vote in local elections. Kubby added that she would like to make it as easy as Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 4 possible for more voters to vote, to remove any barriers possible so people want to make the effort to vote. She believes that district candidates should be purely, genuinely district candidates. They would live in, be petitioned by, and voted on by people who live in that specific district. At -large seats would be voted on by those in the at -large area. Karr asked if the only change would then be in the November election, and Kubby stated yes. Members continued to discuss barriers and obstacles to getting voters to participate in elections. Sullivan noted that for some there is too much confusion and they opt to not be engaged. There are various barriers and there isn't one answer to solving the problem of getting more voter turnout. The discussion continued, with Members weighing in on why they believe having both district seats and at -large seats is the best option. Undervoting in districts was also discussed, with Members questioning voter turnout numbers during these types of elections. Schantz added that for many, unless there is an organizing issue such as the 21-ordinance, you typically have lower turnout. He added that comments he has heard from people who follow City government include: strengthen the mayor, perhaps with an election for mayor. Chappell stated that he is always skeptical of changing things just for the sake of changing. He added that he does not have any strong feelings on the district issue, though he prefers the 4/3 split with four at -large seats. As for the three districts, he does not feel strongly either way about changing things there. As the discussion wrapped up, Chappell noted that they will no doubt revisit these issues. He asked that Members think about these issues and speak with others, and come up with any further information they wish to have before they have further discussions here. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Chappell asked what ideas Members have in regards to garnering public involvement in this process. Sullivan asked what was done at the last Charter Review, ten years ago. Chappell stated that they had one or two designated hearings. One was allowing the public to just say what they wanted to say while the Commission listened. The other was a more collaborative meeting where four specific topics were discussed in smaller groups, with Commission Members taking notes during these small discussions. Kubby stated that this was a good way to actually have some dialogue and conversation, versus a typical meeting where the public speaks but there is no feedback. Karr reminded Chappell that she remembers there was also a third involvement session, after recommendations had been drawn up, to see if there was any further input from the public. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 5 May 27 June 10 June 24 July 8 July 22 August 12 August 26 ADJOURNMENT: Shaw moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission May 13, 2014 Page 6 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM o 0 NAME EXP. a co w W j 4/1115 X X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X Schantz Melvin 4/1/15 X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X Moyer Stone Adam 4/1M5 X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X Vanderhoef nev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time 14 Alternative Preamble to Iowa City Charter —Discussion Draft -�eP2,,m c S--kc,�,4� WE, THE PEOPLE of Iowa City, pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the State of Iowa, hereby confer upon the City the full powers granted a charter city, subject only to the restrictions herein and to the individual liberties set forth in the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Iowa. By this action, we intend to foster the values of resident participation on a broadly inclusive basis in democratic self-government; to promote provision of public services relating to the health, safety and welfare of its residents in a fair, equitable and efficient manner; and to encourage civility by City officers and employees in their interactions with the public. N O U � '(7 � "TJ YA Crnrn n^ M U7