Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-24-2014 Charter Review CommissionL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 24, 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 06/10/14 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF 4. REVIEW CHARTER a. Specific sections to be addressed: • Preamble • Definitions • Article II • Article III b. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) 5. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second and fourth Tuesday of each month) July 8 July 22 August 12 August 26 September 9 September 23 — Tentative Public Forum 8. ADJOURNMENT Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 10, 2014 — 7:30 A.M. HARVAT 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, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None a. Minutes of the Meeting on 05/27/14 — Chairperson Chappell asked if there were any issues with the minutes. Chappell noted that he is questioning what is stated on the second page of the minutes, second paragraph from the bottom, where Karr was responding to a question regarding council pay. Karr noted that this is how she responded, even though it was incorrect; and correct information was provided in this week's packet. Vanderhoef then brought up an issue on the same page, bottom paragraph, where she was talking about the amount of time she herself spent on council issues. The 40-hour minimum was her personal minimum, not necessarily what other councilors should do. Karr noted that she can make this clearer by adding, 'From her perspective..." or "From her experience." Vanderhoef agreed to this. Kubby moved to accept the minutes of the 6/27/14 meeting as amended, seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Sullivan noted that he had a conversation over the weekend with some of the organizers regarding cameras and drones. They had talked to Sullivan about the logistical issues with having to get qualified electors on their petitions. He recommended that they write a letter to the Charter Commission to share their thoughts. Karr stated a correction to the salaries mentioned at the last meeting was distributed; and additional information distributed gives some background history on the salaries, as well the process. Dilkes noted the email provided by Commission Member Kubby, received from Caroline Dieterle, and stated she found the case referenced but has not had a chance to review it yet. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections to be Addressed: Preamble — Chappell noted that in this section they have Schantz's proposal still to review. Definitions — Chappell noted that they are still working on clarifying this section. Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 2 Article II — Chappell then started the review where they left off, with compensation. He noted the information received from Karr on this subject. Atkins asked why they have a salary for council. Chappell stated that it is basically a stipend for Members, one that after some discussion, this Commission thought the amount might need to be raised. Sullivan added that the concern was that those in the community who do not have very lucrative careers might not be able to run for a council seat due to the huge time commitment and low compensation. Financially it would be a hardship for many people. Stone stated that her take on the conversation was that the compensation be enough that most anyone could run for council, but that the amount would not be so much that someone would try to make it their primary job. Kubby added that they need to find that 'sweet spot.' Chappell agreed, stating that there does need to be some type of compensation for missed work, etc. Stone noted that council itself sets the ordinance for their compensation. She questioned if the Charter Review Commission should come up with another mechanism for this, so that the council does not set their own compensation. Members continued to discuss this issue, agreeing that the amount itself should not be in the Charter, but that a formula or something to that effect could be set forth here. Karr noted that State law prohibits councilors from giving themselves a raise — it goes to the next council in two years. Craig stated that to her it appears the current mechanism is working. She questioned if the Charter is the method, actually, to increase engagement in government. Section 2.06 — Vanderhoef spoke to this section, stating that after the last meeting she gave some thought to the topic of the mayor and how many terms this position should have. She presented the idea that there be no more than two consecutive terms for a mayor. This would open up the position more and might help alleviate some of the tensions that can arise within the council itself. Kubby noted that this might help alleviate the pressure that can build politically. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Schantz stating that at some point they need to decide if the selection of the mayor will remain with the other councilors or go to the people. Chappell noted that they can have further discussion at any time on these types of issues. He would like to get through the Charter once and then they can return to those items that need further discussion. Section 2.07 — Shaw spoke to Section 1.01 and how he believes it relates to this section — the City has all powers either granted or necessary -- questioning a power that isn't expressly granted. He also questioned if these two sections shouldn't reference the ordinances that are established by the City. Schantz noted that the Preamble grants powers to the City. Dilkes noted that the wording is from State law and she then touched on what Section 1.01 is saying, as well as Section 2.07. Chappell spoke to this, noting that his concern would be using "necessary" in this wording. He then asked if there was consensus to tentatively approve this section. Members continued to discuss their views on the use of the word 'powers' in this and other sections. Dilkes read what the State code says, noting that this section of the Charter Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 3 comes from the State code itself. Members did agree to tentatively approve this section of the Charter. Section 2.08 — Kubby read Section 2.08 to begin the discussion. She asked if these positions are typically appointed by the councils in other Iowa towns. Dilkes responded that in Davenport, for example, the city attorney works for the city manager. She added that the State code requires that a city clerk be appointed. Atkins questioned item D, if the council actually appoints all members of City boards. Dilkes noted that State law dictates the composition of certain boards and commissions. Members continued to discuss this issue, with tentative approval of this section being made. Section 2.09 — Schantz then read this section prior to the Commission's discussion. Atkins asked if there were any legal standards that lay out how records must be kept. Karr responded that in many cases there are. Schantz noted that the Public Records law would apply here. Sullivan asked if there is something elsewhere about boards and commission recordkeeping standards. Karr stated that this is not included in the Charter as it deals with the council. The bylaws and policies of the boards and commissions are where you would find this information. Tentative approval was reached on this section, as well. Section 2.10 — Sullivan read the next section. Members agreed that there was nothing they could change here as it is dictated by State law. Tentative approval was reached. Section 2.11 — Shaw read Section 2.11 prior to discussion. Dilkes noted for the Commission's information that the only time you do not say 'all members of the council is seven' is when there is an abstention for a conflict of interest. She gave an example of how this could play out, and she also responded to Members' questions concerning these types of issues. Schantz asked if State law requires super majority votes for any particular issues the council votes on. Dilkes responded that it does, and she gave an example of when there is a protest on a zoning decision. She then responded to Members' questions, further clarifying what this section is setting forth. Members agreed to tentative approval of Section 2.11 after some further discussion. Chappell asked that Article III be added to the next meeting agenda so that they can begin discussion of it. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): None DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Chappell discussed the tentative forum schedule, noting that the original date (June 16th) will not work. He added that with everyone's schedule, they have come up with either an August or September date. Karr added that this would give them plenty of time to get through their initial Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 4 review of the Charter, and to have plenty of time to get the word out about the public forum. Kubby added that August might not be a good idea as so many community members are out of town then. Looking at September, Members discussed what date might work for everyone. Chappell suggested they take an evening meeting and make it the public forum. After some discussion, September 23 was agreed to as a tentative public forum date. Chappell asked that everyone come to the next meeting with their schedules so they can then confirm this date. Kubby stated that she still believes they need to have a more conversational format at one of their public forums. W1-11100101J1It41:IZ116 None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each month): June 24 July 8 July 22 — Schantz noted that he will be gone this date. August 12 August 26 September 9 September 23 — corrected date; tentative public forum. Karr asked Members to let her know if their schedules change, and she will alert the chair of possible scheduling conflicts. ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission June 10, 2014 Page 5 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM o 0 0 0 0 NAME EXP. 00 W -4 CD 4/1/15 X X O/ X Steve E Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X X X Kubby Mark 411/15 X X X X Schantz Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X Moyer Stone Adam 411/15 X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X Vanderhoef Kev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Jul 27 - Aug 2 Jul 20 - 26 Jul 13 - 19 Jul 6 - 12 Jun 29 - Jul 5 N N O V O W W c � C v N � O N N M V W 3 a N N N W �+ J V N N v C_ w ti N 0 0 < a m 3 3 3 N W N N C O W w m m m � a v a m W W N F+ F+ M A V 3 N 3 Von, o S � N F a eNm � stow- j n D N F M H — C Ln h 07 a a too- �O N J = T � p O p S 01 N rA�ow N 3 VI mmn+ n N N M !+ cn aowm ru - VrAJ n n N_ m C n eNGw.- d � oN.im nor.+ 8/31 - 9/5 8/24 - 29 8/17 - 22 8/10 - 15 8/3-8 7/27 - 8/1 W IW+ A V o C T v dLl n rt N - L A w �, 0 a a N N W W Vl N 0) kD N l0 a 3 d 3 � 3 3 c W N N + (n W V O W O _O p ryF � W N d A N N N V W co w A a+ NWrA O d NNNm c D � VOWm R ^ WHAV � a ° pGm.- VI N N F+ D) D %D N Oi C U3 F. aC;m.oW T N a � nuW - o u•-`ou = owm y g Q� a W N H 0 V) N £ O w Of m 3 AVOW Ny �u (/� v1WrA y p d a me d , k ' s m-Oct , Sep =-z Sep a-» : Sep o Aug a - Sep. V ; � m # � cr ; m G } |� � dz ® N j/ 2 . j / � �I( «� 42 mw� \_\( i a,