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,