Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-12-2014 Charter Review CommissionTHE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 12, 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 07/22/14 (Pages 2-8) b. Correspondence Y Linda Schreiber (Page 9) 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF (Pages 10-28) 4. REVIEW CHARTER a. Specific sections to be addressed: • Additional Commission discussion of Preamble through Article VI (Pages 29-32) • Article VII — Initiative and Referendum (Pages 33-37) b. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) 5. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6. PUBLIC COMMENT (Pages 38-62) TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second and fourth Tuesday of each month) August 26 September 9 September 23 — Tentative Evening Public Forum October 14 October 28 8. ADJOURNMENT PAGE Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 22, 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, Julie Voparil RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 06/24/14 — Chairperson Chappell noted that they have the Consent Calendar, including the minutes, to review, as well as correspondence from four separate individuals. Dilkes requested a change on the first page where she was speaking about hiring of Police and Fire Chiefs and requested deleting "...these are civil service positions" and adding "there are Civil Service requirements for the hiring of the chiefs." Kubby asked for some clarification on the minutes, at the end where it states, "With others agreeing to start this practice..." where referring to two-hour meetings. She added that she does not recall this as being something agreed to for all of the meetings, just this meeting. After discussion, Members agreed that one -hour meetings are preferred, but that they can play it by ear as they move through this process. b. (1) Robert Givens; (2) Russell Haught; (3) Betty Dye; (4) Caroline Dieterle — Chappell noted that they can discuss the correspondence received if they desire. He noted that Haught's letter speaks to term limits, and both Haught and Dye agree there should be direct election of the mayor. Givens and Dieterle are both advocating for changes to 'qualified' vs. 'eligible.' Kubby suggested that when they receive such written comments that perhaps they should keep a 'tally' of sorts. This will help to show the Members the types of comments they are receiving, and if there are multiple individuals agreeing. Vanderhoef moved to approve the Consent Calendar as amended, seconded by Kubby. Motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Specific Sections addressed: Preamble — none Definitions — none Article 11 — none PAGE Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 2 Article III — Chappell noted that in their packet they have a memo from Dilkes concerning her proposed changes to Section 3.01. He asked if others had anything to add or any comments they would like to make. Kubby asked Dilkes whether or not cities are required to make State -level changes. Dilkes responded that not with respect to these issues. Kubby stated that she was also reviewing the information received from Karr regarding the 10-year history of primaries, and requested more information on candidates who got more than 50%. Kubby continued, speaking to primary vs. run-off elections, and the possibility of eliminating the need for the second election. Members agreed to request from Karr percentages that each candidate received in that primary over the past ten years. Continuing the discussion, Kubby noted that the reason she is asking the question is if it is the standard in this community that nobody gets the 50%, then having a run-off system won't actually be of help to them. However, if in general changing to a run-off would result in more than 1 candidate getting 50% such that a second election isn't needed, then savings could be seen. Chappell then steered the conversation back to 3.01 and Dilkes' proposed changes. He asked if there is a consensus to tentatively approve these recommendations. Vanderhoef asked why the district seat ordinance was changed in 2005, but the at -large goes back to 1985. Dilkes stated that she would have to go back and review the reports to see why. Article IV — Chappell then moved on to Section 4.03 where they left off at the last meeting. He asked Stone to read this section for the Members. After a brief discussion, Members agreed to tentatively approve this section. Chappell then began a discussion of the duties of the city manager, Section 4.04. He asked Dilkes if any of these are part of the State code or not, and she replied that the State code does not have this much detail. Dilkes responded to Members' questions regarding items within this section. Under subsection (6), Members asked how the compensation plans work for the City employees. Dilkes responded that the compensation plans are adopted by resolution of the City Council. She then gave an example of how this section of the article applies. Sullivan asked if they shouldn't add that salaries are basically under City Council control, through resolution, and not city manager discretion. Vanderhoef added that the budget process also provides a review of each department's salaries and compensation packages within City direction. Moving on to subsection (7), Chappell asked if this is the one that changed in the last Charter review process. Kubby spoke to having a `buy local' preference and if there is interest from others, she volunteered to work on some language for this. Sullivan stated that he believes this is more of a city manager preference, not something that should be put in PAGE Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 3 the Charter itself. Dilkes stated that there are a lot of legal hurdles to 'buy local.' Members continued to discuss the 'buy local' policy and whether it should be a part of the Charter. Dilkes gave some further background on the City's purchasing policies, noting that they are adopted by City Council resolution. Chappell then read subsection (8), where members questioned the use of the word 'manage'. Dilkes noted that it does not necessarily mean actually handling the project, but coordinating the functions of the various departments — such as Planning, Public Works, etc., for a project. The discussion continued, with Shaw asking whom other than the fire chief and the police chief does the city manager appoint. Dilkes responded that the city manager appoints all of the department heads. No changes were noted in subsection (9). In subsection (10), Sullivan asked if State law dictates what records need to be maintained. Dilkes stated that in some respects it does. Subsection (11) notes that it is prescribed by State law. Chappell then moved to subsections (12) and (13) with no comments heard. After hearing subsection (14), Atkins stated that his only comment would be use of the word 'business' here. This would refer to the 'affairs' or 'financial affairs' of the City. Kubby noted that anything the City does is essentially considered 'City business,' and others agreed. Chappell then read subsection (15), asking if there is a reason it only states 'boards' as opposed to 'boards and commissions' here. Stone read what the definition is of 'board' within the Charter, noting that it does include boards, commissions, or other similar entities. Chappell then asked a question of Dilkes regarding whether there is a provision for a process by which individuals can petition to have the City's budget audited by the State. She stated that auditors are here every year. Members continued to discuss this Section, debating the list of city manager duties and what should or should not be in the Charter. Schantz noted that this list seems incredibly detailed. Chappell then continued the review, going through the 'shalls' of this list. Vanderhoef noted that the Council sets limits on the amount of a contract the city manager can approve. Dilkes stated that the Council recently added a $150,000 limit for the purchases of commodities, for example. Members then briefly discussed closed session meetings versus public meetings, especially when dealing with an employee, for example. Sullivan asked if others agree that this needs to be a detailed list. There was consensus among Members to tentatively approve this section. Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 4 Craig then read Section 4.05 to the group. Members briefly discussed this, noting that a city manager can vote in an election, they just cannot run a councilor's campaign or something along those lines. Members agreed to tentatively approve Section 4.05. Article V —After Schantz's reading of Section 5.01, Kubby noted that the word 'citizen' is in this section twice, which they previously discussed. Chappell noted that there are several boards and commissions that are dictated by State law — Planning and Zoning and Board of Adjustment, to name a few. Vanderhoef brought up the Library Board, noting that often people would ask how this board functions. She asked if they need to mention those that are dictated by State law. Vanderhoef also questioned why it does not state that the boards and commissions are 'advisory' in nature. She added that this helps to let the citizens know that these boards cannot change things, but that they can make recommendations to the Council. Dilkes noted that not all boards and commissions are advisory. The Airport Commission is one that is not, for example. Sullivan asked Dilkes if the boards and commissions all have a charge or a document that states that they do. She responded that they all have rules and policies that govern them. Sullivan stated that since they are all so different in nature, he believes they should leave the boards' and commissions' details out of the Charter. The discussion continued, with Members then questioning if they don't need to change the name of the CPRB (Citizens Police Review Board) in this document where it previously was the PCRB. Dilkes explained how they are handling this name change in various situations. Members agreed that this should be updated in the Charter at this time. This led to a discussion by some Members of how the complaint system works with this board. Kubby suggested on #2, removing the word 'citizen' here — "to investigate claims of misconduct by sworn police officers' — that this might help reduce some issues. Chappell then asked Members if they agree with the removal of 'citizen's' in #1, as well as in #2, per their discussion. There was consensus among the Members on these changes. Atkins questioned use of the word 'minimum' on subsection A — ".... the following minimum powers". He stated that this does not seem to fit with the rest of it. Chappell argued that the way he sees this one is if nothing else, the CPRB is going to do the following, noting they have a minimum of duties that are assigned to their board. Chappell added that Council can always add to the powers. Shaw asked if it is necessary to reference this board in this way. Dilkes noted this was a referendum vote and is required to be in the Charter. Atkins questioned if they shouldn't consult with the CPRB on some of these issues. Chappell stated that it sounds like they have some definite changes to this section. He asked if there was consensus to tentatively make these changes. Chappell suggested that Karr check with the CPRB on these proposed changes to see if they have any feedback. Majority agreed to indicate the first paragraph as 'A' and change the second paragraph (currently 'A') to 'B'. PAGE Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 5 Chappell then moved on to Section 5.02, which he asked Vanderhoef to read. He questioned the 30-day policy, noting that it was probably adopted when the only way to advertise for these vacancies was in the newspaper. With technology advancements, he questioned if this isn't too long to wait. Members discussed this, with individuals on both sides of the issue weighing in. Sullivan stated that he likes to give the Council discretion, but not necessarily indicating a prescribed shorter period. Chappell suggested the wording of '30 days or less' or at the discretion of the Council. The discussion turned to requirements for advertising for these positions on boards and commissions. Dilkes stated that having no notice before filling a vacancy could lead to more problems than it would solve. Dilkes also noted that since the current version of the Charter was written a new requirement has been made — a gender balance requirement. This can add to the time it takes to find someone to fill an open position. Vanderhoef noted that there have also been times where after 30 days they receive no applications, and then have to readvertise for another 30 days. Voparil clarified that the Clerk's office does not re - advertise 30 days. Chappell stated that this is one area where he would like to hear from Karr, someone who is familiar with this process and has to deal with it on a regular basis. He would like to know if Karr thinks the 30-day window is limiting or causing too many vacancies to go unfilled. Shaw asked, for purposes of this Charter, who is a 'citizen' as it is referenced in 5.02. Chappell noted that this is that one item they are still watching throughout the Charter, and they can then revisit this later and decide how the term 'citizen' is being used here. Kubby asked if there is any value in adding the 'gender balance' piece to the Charter itself. Dilkes noted that the provision references State law so that stet gender balance law applies automatically. Some conversation took place among Members regarding the gender balance issue. Shaw read Section 5.03 at Chappell's request. The question was raised whether or not the rules of boards and commissions are posted on the City's web site. Dilkes noted that the City's web site is undergoing a major overhaul, but that this would be a good thing to consider having available there. Atkins asked if the Council's internal rules are part of this, such as it takes three members of Council to direct that an item be placed on an agenda. Kubby pointed out that this section is dealing with just boards and commissions, not the Council. Members then tentatively approved this section. b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): Article VI — Shaw volunteered to read Article VI and its sections. Chappell began the review with Section 6.01, noting that Dilkes probably knew the latest Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance. She noted that she has not read the most recent case in detail as she did not expect the Commission to get this far today. She added that she will, however, read it prior to the next meeting. Chappell suggested she bring any recommended changes to the next meeting for their review. He then PAGE Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 6 asked Members for their review on this section, where Council currently has set a limitation of $100 per election per candidate. On Section 6.02, Schantz noted that the State changed Chapter 56 fairly recently and may be working on it yet again. He spoke to contributions for primary and general elections, and that the Supreme Court has gotten rid of most of these rules. Members briefly discussed the issue of campaign rules, with Dilkes noting that her review prior to the next meeting should answer some of these questions. As Members wrapped up their conversation, Chappell noted that they will be able to continue their discussion of Article VI at the next meeting and will have Dilkes' memo to help answer questions. They will also begin review of Article VII. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Chappell noted that Karr wanted to speak further to this and how the Members would like to plan their public forum meeting. He suggested they speak to this at the next meeting. Schantz spoke briefly to their September 23rd meeting, stating that he believes they will get more interest if there are some larger issues that the Commission has taken action on to the extent they are able. Kubby stated that previously they had discussed this first meeting being one where the public brings issues of interest to them to the Commission's attention. Then at a second public forum the group would have several areas of interest that could then be addressed more specifically. Schantz noted that the election of the mayor has already proven to be an area of interest, at least from the correspondence received so far. Atkins suggested that this group have a discussion themselves about this issue. Chappell noted that the thought was to first get through a full review of the Charter, and then they can come back and have more detailed discussions about those areas of interest. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. month): Dilkes noted that she will not be able to attend the August 12` meeting, but that she will prepare a memo addressing the Commission's concerns on Article VI as well as the issue raised earlier about Article VII. August12 August 26 September 9 September 23 — tentative public forum. October 14 October 28 ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission July 22, 2014 Page 7 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 PAGE TERM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NAME EXP. `0 W \ O A N -N A -10. -N A ? A 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 411/15 X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X Schantz Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X Shaw --X---X Anna 4/1/15 X X X X Moyer Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X X X Vanderhoef is v X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time PAGE Marian Karr From: L Schreiber <Inschreiber@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:22 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: Request for LWV to host a forum to discuss Iowa City's Charter Review Hello Marian - The League of Women Voters of Johnson County respectfully invites the City Charter Commission to participate in a LW VJC Forum on to be held Nov. 17. Another date can be arranged if the City Charter Commission's work is not ready by that date. The League is a long -respected, nonpartisan political organization. At our core is education and advocacy. A public hearing offered by the City Charter Commission would be decidedly different from one sponsored by the LWVJC. A League of Women Voters forum is moderated by a League member. The forum allows invited speakers, in this case City Charter Commission members, to make initial, short presentations. Forum guests are then presented with a series of questions that have been presented by the public via the moderator. Our organization encourages citizens to become informed and actively participate in the governmental process. League members work to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. Our League works all year, every year, to empower eligible voters and encourage them to participate in the political process. The League's work especially seeks to aid those from traditionally underrepresented or underserved communities, including first-time voters, non -college youth, new citizens, minorities, and low- income Americans. Through the years, the League of Women Voters of Johnson County has performed meaningful work on behalf of citizens. Our role involves studying government, which often results in the League taking a stand to endorse or reject proposals or open new possibilities. In Johnson County, the League of Women studied the Johnson County Communications Center, Council / Manager form of government as well as housing and a host of other topics. The League's belief in an informed citizenry is what inspires Leagues across the nation to organize public forums with representatives from governmental bodies and / or with legislators. It's "business as usual" for our nonpartisan League. Linda it CITY OF IOWA CITPE�o Date: August 7, 2014 To: Charter Review Commission Members From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Five year election information O Primary Election (October) General Election (November) At Large Candidates (6) At Large Candidates (4) Larry Baker 24.6% Amy Correia 52% Amy Correia 46.7% Rick Dobyns 46% Rick Dobyns 46.9% Garry Klein 30% Garry Klein 29.0% Mike O'Donnell 48% Mike O'Donnell 36.5% Mitch Rotman 3.9% District B Candidate (1) District B Candidate NO PRIMARY Connie Champion 96% 2007 Primary Election (October) General Election (November) At Large Candidates (5) At Large Candidates (4) Matt Hayek 70% Matt Hayek 60% Brandon Ross 20% Terry Smith 32% Terry Smith 34% Dee Vanderhoef 24% Garry Klein 29% Mike Wright 35% Dee Vanderhoef 22% Mike Wright 39% District A Candidate (1) District A Candidate NO PRIMARY Ross Wilburn 97% District C Candidate (1) District C Candidate NO PRIMARY Regenia Bailey 97% 2009 Primary Election (October) General Election (November) At Large Candidates (5) At Large Candidates (4) Jared Bazzell 10% Terry Dickens 70% Terry Dickens 70% Susan Mims 75% Susan Mims 75% Jeff Shipley 18% Jeff Shipley 15% Dan Tallon 16% Dan Tallon 11% District B Candidates (2) District B Candidates NO PRIMARY Connie Champion 51% Mark McCallum 47% PAGE 11 2011 Primary Election (October) General Election November) At Large Candidates (7) At Large Candidates (4) Josh Eklow 5% Matt Hayek 65% Richard Finley 8% Jarrett Mitchell 24% Matt Hayek 64% Raj Patel 38% Mark McCallum 14% Michelle Payne 42% Jarrett Mitchell 14% Raj Patel 36% Michelle Payne 38% District A Candidates (2) District A Candidates NO PRIMARY Rick Dobyns 65% Stephen Soboroff 33% District C Candidate (1) District C Candidate NO PRIMARY Jim Throgmorton 95% 2013 Primal Election (October) General Election (November) At Large Candidates (4) At Large Candidates (4) NO PRIMARY Kingsley Botchway Catherine Champion Susan Mims Rockne Cole 41% 38% 42% 33% District B Candidates (2) District B Candidates NO PRIMARY Terry Dickens 58% Royceann Porter 40% PAGE 12 !ulr CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMUKANU Date: August 5, 2014 To: Charter Review Commission Members From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Tally of correspondence received At the July 22, 2014, meeting the Commission requested staff prepare a tally of correspondence received to date. Dates in parenthesis reflect the meeting packet the correspondence is contained. COUNCIL PAY INCREASE ➢ Rod Sullivan (4/22/14) ELIMINATE PRIMARY AND CONSIDER RUN-OFF ➢ Rod Sullivan (4/22/14) INITIATIVE / REFERENDUM -- QUALIFIED ELECTORS ➢ Rod Sullivan (4/22/14) ➢ Robert Givens (7/22/14) ➢ Caroline Dieterle (7/22/14) INITIATIVE / REFERENDUM -- ALLOW NO CONFIDENCE ISSUES ➢ Rod Sullivan (4/22/14) INITIATIVE / REFERENDUM -- ALLOW STATE AND FEDERAL ISSUES ➢ Rod Sullivan (4/22/14) LIMITED TERMS ➢ Russell Haught (7/22/14) MAYOR SELECTION ➢ Christine Stewart (4/22/14) ➢ Betty Dye (7/22/14) MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS HELD WITH GENERAL ELECTIONS ONLY ➢ Rod Sullivan (4/22/14) NUMBER OF DISTRICTS ➢ Rod Sullivan (4/22/14) ONLY DISTRICTS VOTE IN DISTRICTS RACE ➢ Rod Sullivan (4/22/14) OTHER ➢ Linda Schreiber (8/12/14) — invitation from League of Women Voters to host forum r PAGE 13 CITY OF IOWA CITY coal MEMUKAIN Date: August 6, 2014 To: Charter Review Commission From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Charter Revisions from 2004-05 Commission The final report of the last Charter Review Commission (2004-05) was included in your orientation packet. We felt it would helpful if you were provided with the Charter itself showing the changes. Attached is the January 10 version showing cross -outs and inclusions. Vertical lines in the right hand margin shows the sections changed. PAGE 14 January 10, 2005 The Citizens of Iowa City, Iowa, by virtue of the enactment of this Charter, adopt the following principles: 1. That the govenunent 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 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 Rill benefits of "Home Rule." As used in this Charter: 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. "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. 9. "Board" 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 Miele NFF means a City law of a general and permanent nature. 12. "Measure" , except as provided in Article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(1), 3-12-85) PAGE 15 January 10, 2005 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 intended 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. Section 2.01. 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 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. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85; Ord. No. 85-3273, § 2, 12-17-85) 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. 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 elected to represent a Council District, must be a-detnieflirify an cli-ible elector of that Council District. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2),3-12-85) Section 2.04. Terms. PAGE 16 January 10, 2005 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. Section 2.05. Compensation. The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the Mayor and the other Council members;, and4The Council shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December irmnediately following a regular City election. (Ord. No. 85- 3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) Section 2.06. Mayor. A. hmnediately 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 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. C. The Mayor pro tern shall act as Mayor during the absence of the Mayor. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85; Ord. No. 95-3671, § 1, 3-28-95) 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. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) 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. 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 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. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85; Ord. No. 95-3671, § 1, 3-28-95) Section 2.09. Rules; records. PAGE 17 January 10, 2005 The Council may detennine its own rules and shall maintain records 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 arra€€trn� o �a a majority vote of all the members of the Council the-C-otmcibnem4erscxcept as otherwise provided by State law. -4he-Getmeil ma-y submit to th,.�W1, ,, n �p repeal—, in end}Rent-Or-enactment ,•F,,.....,,,,.., pre to t,7eteld on at any jeeceding general, regular ,,,. special City ono, .,d:ft1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a:,..,..,.hr,at�� rrmJmity off't?the „lection the „ ••afro—Jiiai be v aftiended „ eiiaeted a ,.dingl.. 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. With the exception of the aopointment of the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department. which are subiect to approval of the Citv Council, Nneither 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. C. A Councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or direction of any person appointed by or under the control of the City Manager. 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 the ten (10) persons. PAGE 18 January 10, 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. No. 77-2864, § 2, 9-6-77; Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85; Ord. No. 95- 3671, § 1, 3-28-95) 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 namesof 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. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) 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. No. 85- 3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) 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 provided by contract, a City Manager removed by the Council is entitled to receive tennination pay of not less than two months' salary, computed from the date of the resolution of removal. PAGE 19 January 10, 2005 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 eCity ;uManager. 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. Section 4.04. Duties of eCity mManager. A. The City Manager shall be chief administrative officer of the City and shall: (1)hrsure 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. (QAppoint or employ persons to occupy positions for which no other method of appointment is provided by State law or this Charter. (46) 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. (57) Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the City, make supervise all purchases of materials and supplies, and assure that such materials and supplies are received and are of specified quality and character. (68) Supervise and manage 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, improvement, repair and maintenance except where otherwise provided by State law. (79) Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans, drawings, specifications and estimates for the City. (810) 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. (911) Prepare and submit to the Council the amoral budgets in the form prescribed by State law. (1012) Provide the Council rmeuthky an itemized written monthly financial report. (1 13) Attend Council meetings and keep the Council fiully advised of the financial and other conditions of the City and its needs. (1214) See that the business affairs of the City are transacted in an efficient PAGE 20 January 10, 2005 manner and that accurate records of all City business are maintained and made available to the public, except as otherwise provided by State law. (1-315) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and professional assistance to Boards within limitations of the budget. (4416) 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. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) 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 Councilrnembers. 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. 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, 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. 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 none y n t + i a:+ions procedures for the applications U citizens. The Council s�� removal of members f� shall be consistent with State law. (Ord No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) 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. PAGE 21 January 10, 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 ides, and this Charter. 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. No. 95-3671, § 1, 3-28-95) Section 6.02. Disclosure of contributions and expenditures. The Council, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring, �ntliediateli Uwe ffid iczcct cm,i the disclosure of the amount, -vats b.,....., .,r n , 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. No. 85-3228, § 1, 3-12-85) Section 6.03. Definition. Within this article arrexpaitur., � _conhibution„_ deer-x de minat:vrwi cri :. shall be defined as that term is defined in Chapter 56 ("Canipaign Finance") of the Code of Iowa. 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. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12- 85) Section 7.01. General provisions. A. Authority. (1)Initiative. The qualified electors have the right to propose erdimanees- measuresto PAGE 22 January 10, 2005 the Council and, if the Council fails to adopt an--omiri pacea measure so proposed without any change in substance, to have the ordinance measure submitted to the voters at an election. (2)Referendunr. The qualified electors have the right to require reconsideration by the Council of an existing erd+nanes measure and, if the Council fails to repeal such free measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an election. (3)Definition. Within this article, "ordinance measure" means all measures 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. (The City budget. feThe appropriation of money. (The levy of taxes or special assessments. (elThe issuance of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds. fO The letting of contracts. (g)-Salaries of City employees. (Any measure required to be enacted by State or federal law. (i)_Aniendments to this Charter. aAmendments affecting the City Zoning Ordinance or the land use maps of the Comprehensive Plan including the district plan maps. ��a e<i�a 1 �-EIr.,� d tract-a€1an wo-ae�r-�� (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 .rdirnmee 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 .,ran z measure. No erdrnanee measure referred y 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 PAGE 23 10 January 10, 2005 referendum powers upon the qualified vetees electors of the City. (2)Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because it repeals an existing ^yditunic measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new ofdinano measure and (b) an initiative petition may amend an existing erdi-nanee measure. (3)Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal an ordmane€ 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 ordinance measure under consideration. and-sSuch ordinance measure shall remain in frill 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 ardinimee a measure vote to repeal or annend the etdinanee measure and the vote is certified. E. City obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing ordinance 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 ordinance measure during the time it was in effect. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) Section 7.02. Commencement of proceedings; affidavit. A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors, hereinafter refereed 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 fall the proposed initiative ordinatiee measure or citing the erdinanee 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 oClerk 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. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12- 85) 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. 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 PAGE 24 11 January 10, 2005 signing shall provide, and the petition form shall provide space for, the signature, printed name, and address of the person signing, and the date the signature is executed;,a €r information required by rity-Couucil. 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 ordinance measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the City Clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the ordinance 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 lie 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 ordinal ee measure 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. E. Time for filing referendum petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty days after final adoption by the Council of the erdinunee 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. 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. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85; Ord. No. 90-3462, § 1, 6-26- 90) Section 7.04. Procedure after filing. A. Certificate of eCity eClerk; 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„ sSuch notice to must be filed with the City PAGE 25 12 January 10, 2005 Clerk within two days after receiving a copy of the certificate, and the petitioner also must 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. 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 itit-,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. Courtreview.—ne. p Aitic...Bal :a ' , r"+ a; a! review o qi' Ce " -' - t f — ffcy of a petition. Proee ' f idieial review will be-eguitab4 nd-tnttsfbe-ftlea , the State 1,:t,. el Courtf -n�,,-vithi.thirty ,. „we. C tit;..., A A t.,rminafi of;, insufficiency, if., „tamed •t . of the 4rcxo�c�'--ccaznnmiA:} •,, •, ••8n-cv'c'dricdicvi � shall net ....,, .thee the filing of a .. epw petition for the ,....,,e pti.,.,.se. To the extent allowed by law, Court review of the Council's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. 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 same name on the current voting rolls if the qualified elector's birth date is provided and is shown on the voting rolls. (Ord. No. 85.3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85; Ord. No. 90-3462, § 2, 6-26-90; Ord. No. 95-3671, § 1, 3-28-95) 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 ordinaric PAGE 26 13 January 10, 2005 measure or reconsider the referred ordinaneo measure. If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative ordinance measure and fails to adopt an ordinaneo a measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the Council fails to repeal the referred ordinance measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or referred erdirraxree measure to the qualified electors of the city as hereinafter prescribed. The Coune"hall-sulnrrit to the vet e which -has --been proposed erie£crred in ae�or ice with tltep:act hiinsufficierit pursuant to e e�4—. - If at any time more than thirty days before a scheduled initiative or referendum election the Council adopts the proposed initiative ordinanee measure or adopts all ordimmee a measure which is similar in substance or if the Council repeals a referred ^•miffanee measure, the initiative or referendum proceedings shall ternimate and the proposed or referred ordinance measure shall not be submitted to the voters. B. B-Submission to voters. (I)Initiative. The vote of the City on a proposed 'v v- rre erdinanee 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 appropriate sixty er thirty day period provided for consideration or -reconsideration 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 fortv 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., -however Council may ide F ,. „ special referendum "1.,..t...........:..fe:..,.1 Ardi3ianee fin), tiffie after the expifation of the thii4y day period in Seefien-7.05A. C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred ordinance measure shall be made available to the qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the city's expense in the mariner required for "questions" in Section 376.5 of the Iowa Code. The subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed erdi umee measure shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. No. 77-2858, § 2, 9-16-77; Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) Section 7.06. Results of election. A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative onlina+ise measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results. And The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects in the PAGE 27 14 January 10, 2005 same mariner as erd panes measures of the same kind adopted by the Council, except as provided in Section 7.0113(3). If conflicting ordinances 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 erdinance measure vote agaritstit in favor of repealing the measure, it shall be considered repealed 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. 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 ecial Ecity election, and a 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 sigaed-by-e' gi @ -�e-City equal i number to ten percent Ftl „te,t t the last., c 7,,.... ..la,: ^^z^irv^-r-. i@-pErS@nS-wliv.rrrp g�cui City election. 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 s recial Ccity 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 flie City a,,,,al : .,rtmbeF#a tex pereerrt e€ �o„s_`�ho voted at the last preceding regal^.. City election valid under the the-pe preceding 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 Ccity election, and the amendment becomes effective if approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2) 3-12-85) 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 reconnnend any Charter amendments that it deems fit to the Council. The Council shall either exercise its power of amendment PAGE 28 15 January 10, 2005 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. The az .e ,d e Ceuncil tkat e€amen anent pursuant-te J iv23: (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) CIIARTER COMPARATIVE TABLE The Home Rule Charter is set out in this volume as adopted by the voters on November 15, 1973, and by Ordinance No. 76-2792, on January 2, 1976. The following table shows the disposition of amendments to the Charter: Ordinance Number Date Section Disposition 77-2826 3-15-77 II 6.01 77-2858 9-06-77 2 7.0513 77-2864 9-06-77 2 3.01 85-3227 3-12-85 2(1) Definitions 7,8 2(2) 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 3-12-85 1 6.02 85-3273 12-17-85 2 2.01 90-3462 6-26-90 1 7.03A 2 7.04A 95-3671 3-28-95 1 2.0613,2.08C,E, 3.O1A, 6.01, 7.04D I 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. PAGE 29 CITY OF N(_)VVA ('II"rY M11lJAUKA1\1►I»U'lM DATE: 8/7/2014 TO: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FROM: ELEANOR M. DILKES, CITY ATTORNE Qpp�r� RE: ARTICLE VI CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT Issue Is the provision of the Charter requiring contribution limits to be prescribed for City Council elections legal? Conclusion Yes, Article VI of the City Charter which requires Council by ordinance to prescribe limits on contributions made to candidates for election to Council, and the City's ordinance that limits campaign contributions to $100 per candidate per election is constitutional. Discussion Section 6.01 of the Charter provides that 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." A. Section 1-9-2 of the City Code Section 1-9-2 of the City Code is the City's campaign finance provision that implements Article VI of the Charter. The City does not limit expenditures, which as discussed below is constitutionally difficult, and does not require disclosures, which the State does in Section 68A.401-405 of the Iowa Code. The City only regulates contributions to a candidate. Section 1-9-213 reads as follows: Limitations on Campaign Contributions by Persons. With regard to elections to fill a municipal public office: 1. No person shall make, and no candidate or candidate's committee shall solicit or accept, any contribution which will cause the total amount contributed by any such contributor with respect to a single election in support of or opposition to such candidate, to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00). 2. A person shall not make a contribution in the name of another person, and a person shall not knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another. Subsection 2A defines person as: Without limitation, any individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership or association, labor union, political action committee, or any other legal entity. PAGE 30 B. History of Campaign Limits in Iowa Citv In 1975 the City Council enacted what came to be known as the Iowa City Municipal Campaign Finance Ordinance. This ordinance required public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures, placed limits on contributions and expenditures and set forth penalties for violation of the ordinance. The contribution limit in the original ordinance was $125 per person. In 1976, following the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), which invalidated campaign expenditure limitations, the City Council repealed sections of the Municipal Finance Ordinance that limited expenditures. In addition, the amending ordinance decreased the contribution limit from $125 per person to $50 per person. In 1983 the City Council repealed the enforcement provisions of the Municipal Finance Ordinance, including provisions requiring that disclosure reports be filed with the Clerk of Court, making violation of the ordinance a misdemeanor and voiding an election in the event the ordinance was violated. The repealing ordinance stated that these provisions were repealed because candidates for municipal office are subject to the campaign finance disclosure requirements of the State Code and that state law provided adequate regulation. State law does not impose contribution limits. Chapter 68A of the Iowa Code does, however, require candidates and political committees to disclose publicly certain information regarding both campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. As detailed in my memo to the City Council dated April 29, 1999, in a series of decisions invalidating campaign contribution limits, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals required demonstrable evidence that general problems resulted from contributions in amounts greater than the established limits. Due to the state of the law in the Eighth Circuit, I recommended repeal of the City's $50 campaign contribution limit, but noted that the Supreme Court was scheduled to review the Eighth Circuit's decision. I suggested that if the Council believed a contribution limit was necessary to prevent corruption and the perception of corruption it could revisit the issue after the Supreme Court made a decision. The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, determining that contribution limits need not be subjected to the rigorous evidentiary scrutiny required by the Eighth Circuit. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000). According to Nixon v. Shrink, a contribution limit must: 1) Be closely drawn to further the governmental interest of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption; and 2) Not be so low as to prevent candidates from amassing the necessary resources to mount an effective campaign. Id. at 387, 396. Upon reviewing the contributions made to candidates in the 1999 primary and general City Council elections, I concluded in a memo to Council dated October 31, 2000 that a $100 contribution limit would survive scrutiny under the Supreme Court's ruling in Nixon v. Shrink. On February 6, 2001, Council passed Ordinance No. 01-3955 codified at Section 1-9-2 that limits contributions to $100 per person per election. C. Supreme Court Cases Since Nixon v. Shrink In the years following Nixon v Shrink, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered various challenges to campaign finance laws. The Court has continually distinguished between limits on contributions and limits on expenditures. Because expenditure limits pose far greater restraints on speech and 2 PAGE 31 association than do contribution limits, the level of judicial scrutiny applied to an expenditure limit is greater than that applied to a contribution limit. As a result, contribution limits are much easier to regulate. The first line of a 2008 opinion by Justice Souter sums up the Court's position that the constitution allows a complete ban on contributions by corporations. "Since 1907, federal law has barred corporations from contributing directly to candidates for federal office. We hold that applying the prohibition to nonprofit advocacy corporations is consistent with the First Amendment." FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 149 (2003). In 2010 the Supreme Court issued its much discussed opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), in which it held that the federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures was unconstitutional. This past spring in McCutcheon v. FEC, _ U.S._, 134 S.Ct. 1434 (2014), the Court considered two federal statutes limiting campaign contributions. One was a "base" limit that restricted the amount of money a person could contribute to one candidate and the other was an "aggregate" limit that restricted the amount of money a person could contribute to all candidates. With respect to the base limit, the Court stated that the question was determined by Nixon v. Shrink, and thus the base limit was constitutional. The Court found the aggregate limit to be unconstitutional because it did not serve the permissible objective of combatting corruption, as the base limit did. D. Eighth Circuit Cases Since Nixon v. Shrink The 8'h Circuit considered the constitutionality of several provisions of Chapter 68A, Iowa's campaign finance law, in Iowa Right to Life v. Tooker, 717 F.3d 576 (8'h Cir. 2013), cert. denied 134 S.Ct. 1787 (2014). The Court ruled that section 68A.503 banning direct corporate contributions to a candidate, a candidate's committee, or a political committee was constitutional. A contribution "limit need satisfy only'the lesser demand of being closely drawn to match a sufficiently important interest."' Id. at 601 (quoting Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162 (internal quotation marks omitted)). In Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (81" Cir. 2012), the Eighth Circuit reviewed Minnesota's limits on contributions and expenditures by corporations and limited liability companies, as well as disclosure requirements. In dismissing the challenge to the contribution limit, the Court provides a good summary of the Supreme Court's decisions on the constitutional distinction between contribution limits and expenditure limits: The appellants' syllogism fails to recognize the significant distinction the Supreme Court made in its review of laws restricting independent expenditures and laws restricting contributions. Put simply, "restrictions on contributions require less compelling justification than restrictions on independent spending." FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 158-59, 123 S. Ct. 2200, 156 L. Ed. 2d 179 (2003) (quoting MCFL, 479 U.S. at 259-60)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court deemed "restrictions on political contributions ... as merely 'marginal' speech restrictions subject to relatively complaisant review under the First Amendment, because contributions lie closer to the edges than to the core of political expression." Id. at 161. Thus, "a contribution limit involving significant interference with associational rights passes muster if it satisfies the lesser demand of being closely drawn to match a sufficiently important interest." Id. at 162 (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 387-88, 120 S. Ct. 897, 145 L. PAGE 32 Ed. 2d 886 (2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court in Citizens United recognized the variance in the rigor of scrutiny used to review independent expenditures and contributions, see Citizens United, 558 U.S. at _, 130 S. Ct. at 901-02, and neither endorsed nor condemned the distinction, see id. at _ ,130 S. Ct. at 909 (explaining it was not asked to "reconsider whether contribution limits should be subjected to rigorous First Amendment scrutiny"); Id. at 878. In summary, Nixon v. Shrink continues to be governing law, and my opinion continues to be that Iowa City's contribution limit is constitutional. E. Sections 6.02 to 6.04 of the Charter Section 6.02 provides that the council may by ordinance prescribe disclosure requirements, but in light of the disclosure requirements imposed by the state, Council repealed an ordinance requiring disclosures in 1983 as discussed above. Section 6.03 provides that "contribution" shall be defined as it is in Chapter 56 of the Code of Iowa. Chapter 56 has been renumbered to Chapter 68A, therefore this will need to be amended accordingly. The definition of contribution in Section 1-9-1 of the City Code was the same as the definition in the state code when enacted, but the state definition has been amended so the City's definition will need to be amended, too. Section 6.04 provides that the Council shall by ordinance prescribe penalties for violation of the contribution limits. Under the City Code violation is a municipal infraction. To my knowledge there has never been the need to issue a municipal infraction for a violation of the contribution limits. In my experience candidates for City Council have been diligent about adhering to the contribution limits and very proactive in seeking advice and correcting any mistakes. The disclosure reports required by the State provide an adequate mechanism for assuring that candidates are adhering to the contribution limit. Cc: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Sue Dulek. First Assistant City Attorney (GyHy o-V 11ovV(,;1 ((Aly 'AGE 33 INLkA �� M[i))U)l1\A Date: August 5, 2014 To: Charter Review Commission From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Article VII —Initiative and Referendum ISSUES A. Is the requirement in the Charter that initiative and referendum petitions be signed by "qualified electors" (registered voters) legal? B. Is the requirement in the Charter that petition circulators be "qualified electors" (registered voters) legal? CONCLUSIONS A. Yes. The Charter's current signature requirement for initiative and referendum petitions is legal. B. Probably not. The requirement that a circulator be a registered voter must be substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest and is likely unconstitutional. DISCUSSION A. Signature Requirements Ballot access restrictions do not raise First Amendment concerns unless they limit a proponent's ability to advocate or speak. Missouri Roundtable for Life v. Carnahan , 676 F.3d 665, 675-76 Wh Cir. 2012). "[T]he difficulty of the process alone is insufficient to implicate the First Amendment, as long as the communication of ideas associated with the circulation of petitions is not affected." Dobrovolnv v. Moore, 126 F.3d 1111, 1113 (81" Cir. 1997). Because the First Amendment is not implicated, courts have declined to apply an exacting scrutiny standard to such ballot access measures. Missouri Roundtable for Life , 676 F.3d at 675. The Eighth Circuit federal court of appeals, which includes the State of Iowa, has upheld initiative signature requirements against challenges that they run afoul of the First Amendment. See Wellwood v. Johnson. 172 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8h Cir. 1999)(Arkansas law that required 15% of registered voters for all local initiatives but 30% for initiatives to decide whether to change a county from "wet" to "dry" or vice versa did not violate First Amendment because it did not prevent proponents' voices from being heard); Dobrovolny, 126 F.3d at 1112-1113 (rejecting challenge to requirement that petition signatures necessary to place an initiative measure on the ballot was equal to 10% of the number of registered voters in Nebraska on the date that initiative petitions were due to the Secretary of State); see also, Nader v. Hazeltine, 226 F.3d 979, 981 (8t' Cir. 2000) (denying requested injunction to place Nader on the ballot because "that relief would improperly excuse him from the constitutionally valid one -percent [ballot access] PAGE 34 August 5, 2014 Page 2 requirement"). More recently the Eighth Circuit relied on these decisions in rejecting a challenge by Missouri Roundtable for Life to the statutory process required to place an amendment to the constitution on the ballot. Missouri Roundtable for Life, 676 F. 2d at 675-76 (upholding law requiring both the proponents' proposal and the summaries prepared by state officers to be attached to the signature pages); see also, Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 440 (1971)(5% nomination petition requirement for non political party member who had not won a political party's primary upheld); Bowers v. Polk County Board of Supervisors, 638 N.W.2d 682, 692 (Iowa 2002) (Iowa Supreme Court rejecting First Amendment challenge to bond referendum petition process). Similarly, the Eighth Circuit has upheld the requirement that initiative petitions be signed by registered voters. In Hoyle v. Priest, 265 F.3d 699 (81h Cir. 2001) initiative proponents challenged the requirement that those signing the petition be registered voters at the time they signed. The Arkansas Secretary of State contended that the registered voter requirement was necessary to ensure that "ballot measures enjoy significant support of interested citizens who are registered to vote on them" Id. at 703 (quoting record). The Eighth Circuit rejected the challenge, holding that the law was constitutionally sound because it did not restrict political speech and the state's interest in protecting the integrity of its initiative process was paramount. Id. at 704. The court reasoned: The state's mandate counting only signatures of registered voters toward petition certification may make it more difficult to have an issue placed on the ballot, but such a hurdle is not constitutionally impermissible.... As Justice Glaze of the Arkansas Supreme Court stated, "if initiative -petition signers were not required to be registered voters, the Secretary of State would have no list of voters to verify petitions circulated pursuant to [Arkansas Constitution] Amendment 7. The registered voter requirement seeks to exclude those signatures that are falsely obtained or forged and aims to protect the state's initiative process from abuse. Id. at 703 (internal citations omitted); see also, Kendall v. Balcerzak, 650 F. 3d 515, 525(41h Cir. 2011), cart denied, 132 S.Ct. 402 (2011) (relying on the Eighth Circuit's decision in Hoyle to reject a First Amendment challenge by referendum proponents to the requirement that signers of the petition be registered voters.); Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Austin. 994 F. 2d 291, 293-94 (61" Cir. 1993) (rejecting challenge by voters whose initiative petition was denied certification after a large number of signatures were disqualified). The Eighth Circuit also has rejected due process challenges to state initiative requirements. In Dubrovolnv the proponents of the initiative petition argued that the signature requirement violated their right to procedural due process because they were without notice of the precise number of signatures required prior to the deadline for filing the petition with the Secretary of State. They argued that they had a property interest at stake in their initiative campaign because of their investments of time, effort and money in the process. 126 F. 3d at 1113. In holding that the petitioners had neither a property nor liberty interest the court reasoned as follows: Clearly, the right to a state initiative process is not a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, but is a right created by state law. Moreover, the procedures involved in the initiative process, including PAGE 35 August 5, 2014 Page 3 calculation of the number of signatures required to place an initiative measure on the ballot, are state created and defined. Therefore, if any right to the initiative process or specifically to prior notice exists, it is dependent upon a finding that state law has created in appellants an interest substantial enough to rise to the level of a "legitimate claim of entitlement." The state "retains the authority to interpret [the] scope and availability" of any state - conferred right or interest. "[A] liberty interest created by state law is by definition circumscribed by the law creating it." Id. (internal citations omitted) Just as there is no constitutional right to a state initiative and referendum process there is no right to a municipal initiative and referendum process under the constitutions of the United States and the State of Iowa. The City's initiative and referendum process is defined by the City law that creates it. Finally, initiative and referendum procedures do not implicate the fundamental right to vote. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the right to obtain or vote in a referendum is fundamental. Kendall, 650 F. 3d at 523 (citing Howlette v. City of Richmond, 580 F. 2d 704 (4'" Cir. 1978) (affirming a district court ruling that a city ordinance provision requiring each signature of a qualified voter on a referendum petition to be verified before a notary was constitutionally valid)). In Doe v. Reed , 561 U.S. 186 (2010) the United States Supreme Court addressed a First Amendment challenge by referendum proponents seeking to repeal a state law extending certain benefits to same sex couples. The proponents claimed that the requirement of the State's open records law that signatures on referendum petitions be publicly disclosed violated their First Amendment rights. In an unusual 8-1 decision the Supreme Court applied an exacting scrutiny standard and held that the disclosure requirement did not violate the First Amendment because it was substantially related to the state's interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process both in preventing fraud, including forgery and "bait and switch" fraud in which an individual signs based on misrepresentation of the underlying issue, and by ferretting out invalid signatures caused not by fraud but by simple mistake such as duplicate signatures and signatures of individuals not registered to vote. Id. at 503-04. In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayer addressed the nature of initiatives and referenda: I write separately to emphasize a point implicit in the opinion of the Court and the concurring opinions of Justice Stevens, Justice Scalia, and Justice Breyer: In assessing the countervailing interests at stake in this case, we must be mindful of the character of initiatives and referenda. These mechanisms of direct democracy are not compelled by the Federal Constitution. It is instead up to the people of each State, acting in their sovereign capacity, to decide whether and how to permit legislation by popular action. States enjoy "considerable leeway" to choose the subjects that are eligible for placement on the ballot and to specify the requirements for obtaining ballot access. Id. at 512-13 (internal citations omitted). PAGE 36 August 5, 2014 Page 4 Similarly, the Iowa Supreme Court has found that a challenge to a bond referendum petition process does not implicate the right to vote, stating: The right to vote in a general election, i.e., the right to participate in representative (government), is a fundamental constitutional right that may not be abridged absent a compelling state interest. A referendum, however, is a form of direct democracy. Our constitution insures a representative form of government, not a direct democracy. Where a statute provides for an expression of direct democracy, such as by initiative or referendum, it does so as a matter of legislative grace; the right to participate in such a process is not fundamental to our Constitution. Bowers, 638 N.W. 2d at 692 (quoting Kelly v. Macon -Bibb County Bd. of Electors. 608 F. Supp. 1036, 1038 (M.D.Ga. 1985) (emphasis in original)). B. Circulator Requirements The United States Supreme Court has held that restrictions on the circulation of petitions that "limit the number of voices who will convey [the initiative proponents] message" and consequently reduce "the size of the audience [proponents] can reach." are invalid. Meyer v. Grant. 486 U.S. 414, 422-423 (1988); see also. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182, 186 (1999). An "exacting scrutiny" standard is applied to such restrictions because petition circulation is "core political speech." Meyer at 422. This "exacting scrutiny" standard requires that there be a substantial relationship between the challenged requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest. Doe 561 U.S. at 195. In Meyer the Court struck down a Colorado statute which made it a felony to pay circulators of initiative petitions. In Buckley the Court struck down Colorado statutory provisions that required circulators of petitions to be registered voters and to wear identification badges and proponents of an initiative to report the names and addresses of all paid circulators and the amount paid to each circulator. The City's Charter imposes relatively few requirements on the petition circulators. The Charter does require, however, that the circulators be "qualified electors". Absent the identification of a sufficiently important City interest that is substantially related to the requirement that the circulator be a "qualified elector", which was not rejected in Buckley , this requirement is unconstitutional and must be repealed. If you choose, the registration requirement may be replaced with a residency requirement. In Buckley the Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that state residency requirements for petition circulators were permissible. 525 U.S. at 645. Subsequent to Buckley the Eighth Circuit addressed and rejected a challenge to a North Dakota initiative provision requiring all those who circulated petitions to be North Dakota residents. Initiative and Referendum Institute v. Jaeger, 241 F.3d 614, 615-616 (8" Cir. 2001)1: The State argued that the requirement allowed the Secretary to protect the petition process from fraud and abuse and that requiring circulators to be state residents ensured that a provision had "grass roots 1 It appears there is a split in the Circuits on this issue. see Nader v. Blackwell. 545 F. 3d 459 (6t" Cir. 2008) (holding that an Ohio requirement that circulators to be residents violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.) This is the appellate case relied on by the District Court case referenced in Karen Kubby's email of 5/29/14 which invalidated a registration and residency requirement. PAGE 37 August 5, 2014 Page 5 support" and that "the initiative process is not completely taken over by moneyed, out-of- state special interest groups." Id. at 616-17. I will be out of the office during the week of August 11. My First Assistant, Sue Dulek, will staff your August 12 meeting. Cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk Sue Dulek, First Assistant City Attorney P PAGE 38 ^'Ip CITY OF IOW�(A CITY Ott In 1 V Date: August 6, 2014 To: Charter Review Commission From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Forum Attached is information on the 2004 Public input / forum Charter Review Commission notification process. Chairperson Chappell asked me to provide past information and suggestions for the current forum. The 2004-05 Charter Review Commission held two forums, October 12 from 7:00-9:00 pm and December 1, 2004 at 5:30 pm. The item will be discussed further at your August 181h meeting. Information distribution used for one or both forums ten years ago included: Posters on City buses and Cambus Handouts City Hall Public Library Information Senior Center Parks & Recreation Press Release Guest editorial / letter to the editor City website Cable television Radio Programs Interviews Public Service Announcements (PSA's) Direct Mail to: community organizations Neighborhood Associations Past Council Members Commission applicants PAGE 39 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SAMPLE INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR OCTOBER 12, 2004 PUBLIC INPUT SESSION PAGE 40 lFba-r ))y 11sRAFT PUBLIC HEARING Iowa City's Charter Review Commission has scheduled a public hearing on the Iowa City Charter for Tuesday evening, October 12, 7:00-9:00 PM, in Hat -vat Hall of City Hall, 410 East Washington Street. The Iowa City Charter is a document that determines how the government of Iowa City is organized, and is reviewed every ten years. Some items currently being reviewed by the Commission Include: District Council Seats Nomination from and primary election in district/election at large Number of districts Mayor - Currently elected by vote of Council; should Mayor be elected? Initiative and referendum procedures exclusions Citizens are encouraged to attend the hearing or submit written comments to the Commission % City Clerk, 410 East Washington Street (deadline date or not). Copies of the Charter are available on the city website wwwdegov.ore; in the City Clerk's office at 410 East Washington Street; or at the Public Library, address insert. Minutes of the Commission meetings are also available on line (provide link) or in the City Clerk's office. PAGE 41 lt^y OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZEN INPUT �, '@ �■ Iowa City's Chatter Review Commission has scheduled a meeting to receive citizen input on the Iowa City Charter CITY OF IOWA CITY Tuesday, October 12, 7:00 PM, Hat -vat Hall of City Hall, 410 East Washington Street. The Commission's duty is to perform a review and make recommendations for possible revisions to the City Charter, which supplies the groundwork and organization for Iowa City's govermnent. This review takes place once every ten years. An important part of this review process is to hear citizen's opinions regarding the'present Chatter. Citizens are encouraged to attend the hearing and present oral comments (limit of 5 minutes per person). Written comments may be addressed to the Charter Review Commission, c/o City Clerk, 410 East Washington Street, or by a -mail to citycharter©iowa-city.org What is the City Charter? The Iowa City Charter is a document that determines how the government of Iowa City is organized. The 19 page document provides the legal basis for: • Composition of the City Council — number of members; district and at -large members; • How the Council is elected and Mayor is chosen; • Employment and duties of the City Manager; • Relationship with City Boards and Commissions; • Restrictions on campaign contributions; • Procedures for citizen initiatives and referenda. • Other administrative and organizational elements The current Charter is available for review at: wwwdcgov.org/citycharter, City Clerk's office at 410 East Washington Street; or at the Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Linn Street. Minutes of the prior Commission meetings are also available at www.icgov.org/citycharter or in the City Clerk's office. Call 356-5041 for further information, r%hub___ —_— qq%c :ITY OF IOWA CITY PAGE 42 We want to hear from you UN) ), Iowa City's Charter Review Commission has scheduled a meeting to receive citizen input or the Iowa City Charter Tuesday, October 12, 7:00 PM, Ifni -vat Hall of City Hall, 410East Washington Street. The Commission's duty is to perform a review and make recommendations for possible revisions to the City Charier, which supplies the groundwork and organization for lowa City's govermncnt. This review takes place once every ten years, and must be completed within a twelve month period. Ali important part of this review process is to hear citizens' opinions regarding the present Charter. Citizens are encouraged to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments (limit of 5 minutes per person). Written comments may also be addressed to the Charier Review Commission, c/o City Clerk, 410 East Washington Street, or by a -mail to citycharler@lowa-cily.og. Commission Chair Bill Sueppel will report on the Commission's review of the Chatter provisions to date. Thereafter, citizens in attendance or who have submitted written continents will be recognized. Public input is considered a necessary part of the Commission's review process. What Is the City Charter? The Iowa City Chatter is a document that determines how the government of Iowa City is organized. The 19 page document provides the legal basis for: • Composition of the City Council — number of members; district and at -large members; • How the Council is elected and Mayor is chosen; • Employment and duties of the City Manager; • Relationship with City Boards and Commissions; • Restrictions oil campaign contributions; • Procedures for citizen initiatives and referenda. • Other administrative and organizational elements Tire current Charter is available for review at: wwwJcgov.orWcitycharter, City Clerk's office at 410 East Washington Street; or at the Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Lirm Street. Minutes of the prior Commission meetings are also available at www.icgov.org/cityclrarter or in the City Clerk's office. Call 356-5041 for further information. Future Opportuuitles for.Iuput Working Commission meetings are ]reld at City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, at 7:00 a,m. Following is a schedule for upcoming meetings: October 11, October 13; October 20; October 27; November 8; November 22. All Commission meetings are open to the public. Citizens are always welcome and public input is encouraged. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Agendas are posted at City Hall and available or the City website and in the City Clerk's office. PAGE 43 r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEM0RANDUM DATE: October 6, 2004 TO: Charter Review Commission FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk RE: Items Available for Public Input meeting The following items will be available at the October 12 public input evening meeting as requested: Copies of the Charter Copies of all correspondence received to date (bundled) For Chair info.numbers like: hours spent reviewing number of meetings etc. PAGE 44 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SAMPLE INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR DECEMBER 1, 2004 PUBLIC INPUT SESSION PAGE 46 November 10, 2004 I r , :Ifl� .k Wylrma�� CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Strccl Iowa City, Iowa $2240.18I6 1319)356-$000 (319)3$6.5009 FAX www.Icgov.org Re: Iowa City Charter Review Commission Invitation to Community Discussion on Potential Charter Amendments December 1, 2004 — 6:30 p.m. • Iowa City Public Library Room A (123 S. Linn St.) Dear Community Organization: The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Charter, any amendments recommended by the Commission must either be adopted by the City Council or placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters. The Commission teas been meeting regularly since May and has received public input through letters, e-malls, telephone calls, visitors to meetings, and an October 121h public hearing. As a result of these meetings and public Input, several potential changes have been discussed by (tie Commission. The Issues to be discussed by the community on December 1 Include: (1) Election of Mayor - The Mayor Is currently selected for a two-year term by a majority vole of the City Council members. The Mayor Is the figurative head and a voting member of the City Council and has the responsibility to lead Council meetings. Assuming the Mayor's powers and respbnsibililies remain the same, should the Mayor instead be selected for a four-year term by a majority vote of the citizens? This would require one of the at -large council positions to be designated as the Mayors slot and other possible administrative changes to the Charter. (2) District Representation - Currently 3 of 7 Council Members are nominated within their district and a primary Is held In the district If needed. The November city election has district Council Members elected by voters citywide, Should the number of districts be Increased? Should the district Council Members be "pure" Le. general election held In the districts only? The Charter Review Commission Invites and encourages members of your organization to be a part of this public discussion, Please give them this Information. The format of this Community Discussion will be informal and Interactive. Depending on the number of participants, those attending will be divided Into groups. Each group will spend up to twenty-five minutes discussing each Issue. At the conclusion of the group discussions all participants will gather. Commission members will briefly summarize the group discussions and allow time for a general discussion of any additional Charter Issues raised by the citizens participating. The Commission's hope is that smaller groups and less formality will engender meaningful discussion In a way that will benefit the Commission's review of the Charter. The members of the Commission hope you will find a way to attend and participate In this Timely and important discussion. Very trrullyy� yours, WC F.tuep2el William F. Chairperson P.S. This meeting is open to the public, and anyone may attend. S/dk/Charter(evlow/communflyprocessFINAL.doo PAGE 46 City Buses C' )MI M�IIHNITY DISCUSSION 00 POT. l,,M`II":IIA MENDMENTS `:I 0 HIV✓..�,_ 01`IIT"S CHARTER ADECEMBER. 1, 2004, 5o.30 MM[ :I OWA C y I TY PU B ,1C Lff � �)RUPW QUESTIONS °i�y�il��r��t��@I®vv �A�yoc�fr r •'�' 4142j;��� <� Gty oP CR60 Cainbus PAGE 47 CC � # ID C O JIIMI[UNII'111( INSCjUSSION: AIM11.11+A1D I)WENTS TO I10V CIT` ' S C HARTER '111,AC CEMBEIR :19 ),,QD4D1, IIC➢WA CITY PU I'L C; II,1RY IIR�0 0M A (Accessible to people with special needs.) QUESTIONS PAGE 48 Con-/b-�yCommY unit Discussion: 11�mmflbl[e `1umenQlTll11enA4 to CR61 Wednesday, December 1, 2004 5:30 P.M. Iowa City Public Library — Room A 123 S. Linn Street The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Charter, any amendments recommended by the Commission must either be adopted by the City Council or placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters. The issues to be discussed by the community on December 1 include: (1) Election of Mayor - The Mayor is currently selected for a two- year term by a majority vote of the City Council members. The 'Mayor is the figurative head and a voting member of the City Council and has the responsibility to lead Council meetings. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain the same, should the Mayor instead be selected for a four-year term by a majority vote of the citizens? This would require one of the at - large council positions to be designated as the Mayor's slot and other possible administrative changes to the Charter. (2) District Representation - Currently 3 of 7 Council Members are nominated within their district and a primary is held in the district if needed. The November city election has district Council Members elected by voters citywide. Should the number of districts be increased? Should the district Council Members be "pure" i.e. general election held in the districts only? The Charter Review Commission invites 3.� everyone to be a part of this public discussion. M• CITY OF IOWA CITY ICGov.Org Entail Release Marian Karr From: web@lcgov.org Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:02 PM To: marlari-karr@iowa-clty.org Subject: ICGov.org Media Release: General City News U0 our Ilnk !o C1ry Nall Title : COMMENTS SOUGHT ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS OT IOWA CITY'S CHARTER Release Dates Thursday, November 18, 2004 Release Time : 2:58:00 PM Originating Department : City Clerk Contact Person : Marian K. Karr Contact Number s 356-5041 The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Charter, any amendments recommended by the Commission must either be adopted by the City Council or placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters. A community discussion on potential Charter amendments will be held December 1, 2004, 5:30 p.m., in Room A of the Iowa City Public Library (123 S. Linn St.). The Issues to be discussed by the community on December 1 Include: (1) Election of Mayor - The Mayor Is currently selected for a two-year term by a majority vote of the City Council members. The Mayor Is the figurative head and a voting member of the City Council and has the responsibility to lead Council meetings. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain the same, should the Mayor Instead be selected for a four-year term by a majority vote of the citizens? This would require one of the at -large council positions to be designated as the Mayor's slot and other possible administrative changes to the Charter. (2) District Representation - Currently 3 of 7 Council Members are nominated within their district and a primary Is held In the district If needed. The November city election has district Council Members elected by voters citywide. Should the number of districts be Increased? Should the district Council Members be "pure" I.e. general election held In the districts only? The Charter Review Commission Invites everyone to be a part of this public discussion. Additional Information can be found on the City webslte citycharter@lowa- clty.org To subscribe and unsubscribe from ICGov email releases click here: http://www.lcgoy.Qw/subscrlbe.asp Click here to go to the City Jobs page PAGE 49 Page 1 of 2 CR62 11/18/2004 PAGE 50 I rt. i jlltl WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE IOWA CITY CHARTER? Our Mayor is currently chosen by the seven members of the council. Do you want the Mayor to be elected directly by the citizens? Or do you prefer the current method? Our Council Is currently comprised of 4 at -large members and 3 district members. Do you want this to change to 3 at large and 4 by district? Or do you prefer the current composition? Our district candidates are winnowed down to 2 per district at the October primary election if more than 2 seek a specific district seat. Only the voters in that district select the final two candidates In the primary election. That district member is chosen by the voters citywide In the regular November city election. Do you want district members to be chosen only by district voters In the regular November city election? Or do you prefer the current method? Are there any other changes that you believe should be made to the City Charter? Here is your opportunity to speak out on these matters with your fellow citizens and with the members of the Review Commission. Come to the Iowa City Public Library, Room A, 123 S. Linn Street, at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, 2004. We want to discuss these issues with Q'i Historically, on November 15, 1973, the citizens of Iowa City approved a Home Rule Charter creating a new form of city government. That charter provided that a Charter Review Commission be established to review the charter CR63 i - PAGE 51 once every ten years and recommend any amendments that it deems fit. That process was followed in 1984-1985 and in 1994-1995. This past spring, the Iowa City Council appointed nine citizens to commence the decennial review and update. An organization meeting was held on May 19, 2004, and the Commission has met 15 times since then. The existing charter provides that a recommendation by the Review Commission must either (1) be adopted by the City Council; or (2) submitted by the council to the Iowa City voters for their consideration. While the nine members of the Review Commission are the ones who make the recommendations, It is essential that these members hear from the community. The format of this community discussion will be informal and Interactive. r Those attending will be divided into groups, which will discuss each of the Issues specifically set out above. At the conclusion of the group discussions, all participants will gather to summarize the group discussions. Any additional charter Issues may be raised and discussed at that time. The Review Commission hopes that this format will engender meaningful discussion and benefit the review of the Charter. This meeting Is open to the public. The members of the Review Commission hope you will attend and participate in this timely and Important discussion. It's your Charter — let your voices be heard. William F. Sueppel, Chair Iowa City Charter Review Commission 2 City of Iowa City, Iowa - Official Web Site 4cs our !!nk to City Nall t t r t t 7caysemicos 3city focls ]council ]documents Page I of 2 -e� 1gr111r wows ltiilo tlenartututisutsito`rs search 3 city code :3 non -city links COMMUNITY DISCUSSION: POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO IOWA CITY'S CHARTER December 1, 2004; 6:30 PM Iowa City Public Library, Room A 123 S. Linn Street Public meeting open to all The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Charter, any amendments recommended by lhe.Commisslon must either be adopted by the City Council or placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters. The Commission has been meeting regularly since May and has received public Input through letters, e-malls, telephone calls, visitors to meetings, and an October 121h public hearing. As a result of these meetings and public Input, several potential changes have been discussed by the Commission. Proposed changes to the City Charter will be the topic of a public meeting scheduled for 6:30 PM, December 1, 2004, Proposed changes Include: 1, Election of Mayor - The Mayor Is currently selected for a two-year term by a majority vote of the City Council members. The Mayor Is the figurative head and a voting member of the City Council and has the responsibility to lead Council meetings. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain the same, should the Mayor Instead be selected for a four-year term by a majority vote of the citizens? This would require one of the at -large council positions to be designated as the Mayor's slot and other possible administrative changes to the Charter. 2. District Representation - Currently 3 of 7 Council Members are nominated within their district and a primary is held In the district If needed. The November city election has district Council Members elected by voters citywide. Should the number of districts be Increased? Should the district Council Members be "pure" i.e. general election held In the districts only? The format of this Community Discussion will be Informal and Interactive. Depending on the number of participants, those attending will be divided Into groups, Each group will spend up to twenty-five minutes discussing each issue. At the conclusion of the group discussions all participants will gather. Commission members will briefly summarize the group discussions and allow time for a general discussion of any additional Charter issues raised by the citizens participating. If you cannot attend this meeting, the public is welcome at any of the Commission's regular meetings and written comments will be accepted at any time by mall to Charter Review, Attn: City Clerk, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 62240 or by a -mail at cityclrarter@Iowa-city.org Im u Proposed Amended Charter-1119iO4 << Return to City Charter http:/hvww.icgov.orgkounciVcharteraiiiendmeiit.litm 11/17/2004 Page I of 2 City of Iowa City, Iowa - Official Web Site (4-M V. ,your fink to City Hall t t F t t t 7 oily services ]city facts 3council ]documents �IIIif71` .110W5 � 10115' IAt Charter Review Process Underway The duties of the Charter Review Commission will be to review the existing City Charter and within twelve months recommend any charter amendments that it deems fit. The Commission's recommendations are binding on the Council. The Council must submit the Commission's recommendations to the voters unless, on the Commission's recommendations, the Council amends the Charter by Ordinance. Meeting Scheduled for 12/01/04 to Receive Input Cilck here for more information What is the City Charter? The Iowa City Charter is a document that determines how the government of Iowa City is organized. The 19 page document provides the legal basis for: • Composition of the City Council - number of members; district and at -large members; • How the Council Is elected and Mayor Is chosen; • Employment and duties of the City Manager; • Relationship with City Boards and Commissions; • Restrictions on campaign contributions; • Procedures for citizen initiatives and referenda. • Other administrative and organizational elements Questions about the Iowa City Charter Review Commission should be directed to Marian Karr, City Clerk at 366-5041 or citycharter@lowa- clty.org. Proposed Amended Charter • 1119/04 Present City Charter Charter Review Commission Agendas/Minutes Charter Review Commission Membership 11151[pfSME Written comments can be addressed to: Madan Karr, City Clerk Attn: Charter Review City of Iowa city 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 62240 E•mall comments may also be subnatled electronically to: cltycharteralowa•clty.org. Please Include name and address with as correspondence. ti,.� home I services I business I calendar( news i Jobs I departments http:/hvww.iogov.org/councivcharterreview.Iltm 11/17/2004 PAGE 64 From Karen Kubby Suggested ThnefiYune for December 1, 2004 Public Discussion 5:30prn Welcome and introductions by William Sueppel, Sr., Chair(( CR6rJ Explain format of meeting Jill Count off by 4's ,J- �,r 5:45pm Break into first set of small groups —Mayor election process discussion 6:1Opm End first small group discussion 6:15pm Begin second small group discussion —District discussion: number/how elected 6:40pm End small group discussion 6:50pm Small groups report back to large group If many groups, maybe the top three issues of each topic are reported If few groups, could report more 7:05pm Large group discussion about any issue participants bring up 8:00pm Closing remarks by the Chair Facilitator Tips 1. Check in to see if everyone understands the format of the next 25 minutes. 2. Remind the group what topic this group is discussing, reminding them they will have a chance to talk about the other topic in small group, as well as anything else they have in mind during the large group time. 3. Ask if anyone needs any clarification about how the current charter works in this area and what the suggestion for change was. Answer concisely to clarify. This allows everyone to have the sane information and understanding about what is being proposed. 4. Some suggested questions: a. How do you feel about this potential change? b. No matter how you fool about the change, what might be some benefits to this change for the community? c. No matter how you feel about the change, what might be some negative consequences of this change for the community? 5, Keep the group focused on the task at hand within the above tinmefrane. 6. If someone wants to bring up another topic during small group discussion, ask them to write down their topic and that around 7pnm, the floor will be opened up for other areas within the charter. 7. If someone dominates the conversation, ask the group if anyone else has anything to contribute or add to the conversation. If not, that person is allowed to go on. 8. If not everyone is contributing, ask if anyone who hasn't spoken would like to add something. Look around the group equally for response, so as not to "pick" on anyone in particular. 9. Near the end of the time, you can do a "round robin" to see if anyone wants to add anything before the discussion ends. This allows one last chance for people to contribute. PAGE 55 Some Pros a►►►1 Cons of Major Charter Review Topics At December 1, 2004 Public Discussion Mayor Election Process Elected by City Council Pro 1. Is working well now. 2. Good working relationship with council. 3. No seat left open if council member moves over to Mayor's seat, resulting In a special election. Con 1. Leadership could be stronger. 2. Process is not public —mostly behind the scenes. 3. Original charter conunission could have gone either way with the Mayor selection process. 4. Person who can get 4 votes is not always the best leader. Elected by Voter Pro 1. Mayor is community leader and should be elected by the community. 2. More public process. 3. Is a representative gov't—direct election is is more representative. Would allow use of other voting systems and eliminate cost of a primary for candidate and public. Con 1. Could result in an inexperienced Mayor. 2. If a council member moves over to the Mayor's seat, it would trigger an appointment or special election. 3. More expensive election process. Dish-ict Seals 4 vs 3 Districts Pro 1. City has grown —need more distribution of where in 1. the city council members lives. 2. 2. Smaller districts allow for more grassroots campaign strategies during the primary. 3. Consistent with other charter communities. True Districts Pro I. Relieve voter confusion. 2. Smaller districts allow for more grassroots campaign strategies for the primary and general election. This could result in a wider variety of candidates. 3. Would allow use of other voting systems and eliminate expense of a primary for both candidate and public. 4. Consistent with most communities in the US. Con Current system works well. Would have to redraw districts. Con 1. Current system works well, 2. District reps aright work hardest oil Issues effecting their district and not have the interests of the entire city in mind when making policy. PAGE 66 Gazette, Monday, November 15, 2004 tr CR66 CITY GOVERNMENT ELM ff IN Fit er ■ A INUM Public meeting set Dec. 1 to discuss possible changes By Mark Qulner The Gazette IOWA CITY — For those who want a say in the struo ture of Iowa City government, your day is near. A ntne-member commis• sion, appointed by the City Council. is re-examining the structure of city government. A public meeting will be held at 6:80 p.m. Dec. 1 in :nn A at the Iowa City ablic Library for residents to comment on the comurts- sion's decisions. Now, the council has four at -large members and three district mennbers. District candidates are selected by residents In their respective district and than elected by the entire city. Council mein. hers choose the mayor, who votes on issues, acts as the city's official representative and Tolley spokesman and prestdas over the council, The commission 1s consid• ering three major changes: • riecting the mayor. e Creating "true dist•Icts," where council members are elected only' by their district and not the entire city. • Increasing the number of district council members from three to four, leaving three at -large represenatives. In the 1970s, Iowa law ;it - lowed cities to choose their form of government, with re- strictions, said Eleanor. Dilkes, Iowa City attorney. Iowa City decided on a home. rule charter, meaning the city chooses the structure instead of one mandated by the state. Only three other towns In Iowa have a home -rule Char- ter, she said. When the charter was adopted hr 1978, there was extreme division In the city, 69We have to make sure that our form of democracy Is not stale9' Karen Kubby Charter comaisslon member said Iowa City Clerk Marian Karr. To help ensure.each section of Iowa City was represented in government, the city decid- ed to have three district rep. resentatives, who had to be elected by the entire city. The city also decided the charter would be reviewed every 10 yyears, with this be- ing the tinlyd such review. The commission has ap- pioved a temporary charter but only silght wording changes were made, said Ka- ren Kubby, a charter commis- sion member. The public nndeting will help determine Charter/Commission considers all sides ► FROM PAGE 1D Nate Green, 23, of Iowa City, are represented by district said ire is waiting for more council members, but thinks things, she said; input from the public before true districts may cause more True districts also would lie takes a stance out those lobbying for %1ectal Interests make it possible for a wider Issues. Although he sees both by each district. Now, there range of people to be elected, sides, Green said he is lean- is district representation, but she said. Under the present Ing toward keeping the may- the entire community still system, a candidate must be or -selection process. The for, has a say in the entire coun- well-known throughout the mer UI student body ell, he said. city to be elected. With true president said the system en- "It fosters more of a whole districts, they only need to be sures the mayor has expert- cotmnunity outlook," Green well-known 1n their neighbor- once. By directly electing the said. hood; making It easier for mayor it would change the their interests to be repre- face ottelections In Iowa City, For more inforuation sented. causing more. campaign about the public meeting or The four at -large council spending and faliflae, he said, for coulee t information on members could help temper - the charter members, call the parochialism from the district Green said lie is even more city clerk at (319) 356-6043. council members, Kubby said. conflicted on whether or not University of Iowa law stir- to develop true districts. He ■ contect Ne witer. (319) 3393161 of dent and commission member likes the Idea that districts ma k.quine 6guallecomnx nkeeonf.com the outcome of these Impor- tant issues, she said. Kubby said while marry be - nova the current form of gov- ernment in Iowa City works fine changing aspects of it coWd be quite beneficial. "We have to make sure that our form of democracy 1s not stale," she said. The commission Is excited and open to new ideas, she said, and encourages the pub- lic to give input. Kubby said she suppppoorts an elected mayor, a position that would bring a different sense of leadership although the du- ties would remain the same. She said she also wants to keep, the four at -large seats and three district seats, but wants to make the districts true districts. During every election, much time is spent educating the electorate about Iowa City's "funky" govern- ment system, Kubby said, Tilts would help simplify ► CHARTER, PACE 2D LETTER TO GAZETTE — IOWA CITY CHARTER (Please print this letter between Sunday, November 28 and Tuesday, November 30.) Naomi J. Novick 306 Mullin Ave Iowa City, IA 52246 (319)337.4649 November 19, 2004 Iowa City has a City Charter which describes in detail the government of our City. The Charter was written by a committee of citizen volunteers, and then was adopted by the voters in 1973. This Charter requires a formal review every 10 years, which is also done by a committee of citizen volunteers. The third Charter Review Commission is now meeting regularly, and we are also encouraging other city residents to tell us what they think about the City Charter. We will hold a public discussion of the Charter on December V at 5:30 p.m. at the Iowa City Public Library. This discussion, in small groups, will include the election of the District Council members and the election of the Mayor. Other Charter topics that people wish to discuss may be brought up that evening. Copies of the Charter are available at City Hall and the Library, or you may read it at www.icgov.org. Please take this opportunity to have your opinion of the Charter heard, Or, you may just come to listen and learn about your city and its government. N, Naomi J. Novick, Member Iowa City Charter Conunission PAGE 58 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SAMPLE INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR SEPTEMBER 239 2014 PUBLIC INPUT SESSION PAGE 59 General News Release: The Charter Review Commission will be holding Community Input forum to hear public input on the Iowa City Charter, The Charter is the document that determines how the government of Iowa City is organized, and provides the legal basis for: • composition and election of the City Council and Mayor • employment and duties of the City Manager • Relationship with City Boards and Commissions • Restrictions on campaign contributions • Procedures for referendums and initiatives WHET TIME WHEI Questi Send y MondE Please Charte % Mat City oI 410 E Iowa t Or e-n citycharter@iowa-city.org The Board will attempt to address all correspondence received. The forum will be taped and rebroadcast on the Interactive City Channel 4. rllowing by PGE 60 and (efi< r�l�ase' General News Release: The Charter Review Cormnission will be holding Community Input forum to hear public input on the Iowa City Charter. The Charter is the docwient that determines how the government of Iowa City is organized, and provides the legal basis for: • composition and election of the City Council an([ Mayor • employment and duties of the City Manager • Relationship with City Boards and Commissions • Restrictions on campaign contributions • Procedures for referendums and initiatives WHEN: Tuesday, September 23 2014 TIME: 7:00 PM WHERE: Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E Washington Street, IC Questions & Comments: Send your questions or comments you'd like_ ail dressed at the forum to the following by Monday, September 15th: Please include full name and address. (All correspondence is public) Charter Review Commissioli:i, ti::::• City of Iowa City <.>. 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Or e-mail to: citycharter@iowa-city.org The Board will attempt to address all correspondence received. The forum will be taped and rebroadcast on the Interactive City Channel 4. The agenda is available at: http://www.icgov.ore/default/ai)psiboards/boardList.asp PAGPetl" We invite YOU to attend. The City of Iowa City CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION COMMUNITY INPUT FORUM WHEN: TIME: WHERE: Tuesday, Septembe 7:00 PM Emma J. Ha 410 E The Charter is the document that''dete organized, and provides the legal basi hingtc •mines hi • composition and election of the City Co. • employment and duties of the City Man • Relationship with City Boards and Com • Restrictions on campaign contributions • Procedures for referendums and initiatil (Find the City Charter at www.icgov.org Clerk's office in City Hall) 2014 II street, IC government of Iowa City is ager missions under City Charter or at the City QUESTIONS & COMMENTS: Send your questions or comments you'd like addressed at the forum to the following by Monday, September 15th: Please include full name and address. (All correspondence is public) Charter Review Commission Or e-mail to: % City Clerk citycharter@iowa-city.org City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 The forum will be taped for rebroadcast. PAGE 62 ly ffi A A A AL WIT ffamm ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM my DENCE AND/OR I COMMISSION A me ImIll 19% 0 at"I PMA m I WMIN N as m Do$ From Commission Member Mark Schantz Preamble to Iowa City Charter --Discussion Draft 2.0 WE, THE PEOPLE of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the State of Iowa and the principle of self-determination, do hereby adopt this Charter and and confer upon it the full powers of a charter city. By this action, we intend to foster: --resident participation on an inclusive basis in democratic self-government; --the provision of services relating to the health, safety and welfare of its residents in a fair, equitable and efficient manner; --the conduct of city business In conformity with due process, equal protection of the laws, and those individual liberties protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Iowa; --civility by city employees in their interactions with the public. From Commission Member Mark Schantz Electing the Mayer --Possible Amendments 1.0 (Discussion Draft) Section 2.01. Composition The City Council consists of seven members: the mayor and three members known as council members at -large to be nominated by the eligible electors of the city at -large; and three members know as district council members to be nominated by eligible electors in their respective districts. All council members shall be elected by the qualified electors of the city at - large. Section 2.06. Mayor A. Powers and Duties. The mayor shall be a voting member of the city council and shall attend and preside at the meetings of the council, represent the city in intergovernmental relationshsips, appoint with the advice and consent of the council the members of citizen advisory boardsand commissions, present an annual state of the city message, appoint the members and officers of council committees, assign subject to the consent of the council agenda items to committees, and perform other duties specified by the council. The mayor shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes and by the governor for purposes of military law but shall have no admistrative duties. o. Mayor Elected at -Large. At each regular election the voters of the cityshallelect a mayor at- large for a term of four years. The council shall elect from among its members a deputy mayor who shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the mayor and, if a vacancy occurs, shall become mayor for the remainder of the unexpired term.