HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-26-2014 Charter Review CommissionTHE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
Jtl=I =11I110[r7eCr]4zU7M
Tuesday, August 26, 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 08/12/14 (Pages 2-7)
b. Correspondence
• Tom Carsner (Page 8)
3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF (Pages 9-10)
4. REVIEW CHARTER
a. Specific sections to be addressed:
• Additional Commission discussion of Preamble through Article VI
• Article VII — Initiative and Referendum
b. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows)
5. UPDATE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT REVIEW PROCESS (Pages 11-12 )
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
7. TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:30 AM unless specified)
September 9
September 23 — Evening Public Forum 7:00 PM
October 14
October 28
November 11 (City Holiday)
November 25
8. ADJOURNMENT
PAGE 2
Charter Review Commission
August12,2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 2014 — 7:30 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw,
Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef (arrived 7:36)
Members Absent: Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers Stone
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Marian Karr
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 07/22/14 —After the 'Correspondence' review,
Chairperson Chappell asked if there were any changes to the meeting minutes.
b. Correspondence — (1) Linda Schreiber — Chairperson Chappell called the
meeting to order and noted that in reference to the Consent Calendar, they have
correspondence from Linda Schreiber, who is present to speak to the
Commission this evening. He asked Schreiber to go ahead and describe what
her proposal is. Schreiber addressed Members, noting that the League of
Women Voters has a long history in Johnson County of hosting forums. These
are public forums where questions can be proposed on a variety of current
issues. Schreiber added that the League would like to be able to provide the
citizens of Iowa City with an update, via one of these forums (suggesting
November 17t'), about the Charter Review Commission's work.
Chappell responded that currently the Commission is working its way through the
Charter, doing a cursory review of each section. Those sections that will need
further discussion are being tabled, while those that are basically
noncontroversial are being given a tentative approval. He noted that once this
has been completed, they will then be ready to host several public hearing type
of events. Chappell added that he would be happy to participate in anything that
the League would like to host, and he asked what other Members think of
participating. He asked Schreiber for some clarification on what type of forum
the League would like to see. Schreiber stated that the League is more than
willing to work with the Commission on whatever type of forum they would like,
that they want to be part of the overall discussion of the Charter Review process.
Sullivan added that he believes this would be a great idea, and that the League
should decide if they want an informational type of meeting or if they want some
back -and -forth dialogue to take place. After some discussion of just what type of
forum should be held, all agreed that if the Commission is not done with their
review by November, which is the date the League would like to hold a forum,
they probably should wait to schedule this. Schreiber added that perhaps after
the first of the year would be a better time to look at this again.
PAGE 3
Charter Review Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 2
Members continued to discuss this issue, questioning if they should do a co-
sponsor event with the League, or continue as they had planned. Chappell then
suggested that Schreiber speak to the League, letting them know that the
Commission is interested in some type of collaboration, but that they want to
know more specifically what type of forum this will be. This could be either a Q &
A or some type of interactive forum, for example. Chappell added that a
November date may not be too early, that they really just need to know what type
of forum to expect. Schreiber stated that she will speak with the other League
members and will be back in contact with the Commission as soon as possible.
Kubby stated that they should look at a November date that is after the elections,
so that there is no confusion about any of these issues being on the ballot.
Schreiber will be in touch with the Commission once the League has had time to
discuss this further.
Chappell noted that they also have correspondence from Member Mark Schantz
that states he is working on some language for the Preamble and also a
discussion draft for amendments that would provide for the direct election of the
mayor. Karr noted that Schantz was distributing this information to Members
now so that they can discuss at a later meeting. Chappell asked that Members
review this information prior to the next meeting, and asked Karr to include in the
next meeting packet for Members' convenience.
Atkins moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Sullivan.
Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Stone absent.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Karr stated that information was included in the meeting packets regarding elections. This was
requested at a previous meeting. Also included was the red -line version of the 2005 revision to
the Charter to help Members see what changed from the last time to what they have before
them now. She added that there is also correspondence from City Atty. Dilkes in the packet.
Kubby spoke to why they requested the election information. The question was raised on
whether the City could avoid some of the costs of a primary. She added that in looking at the
information provided, it does not look like there is any savings to be had. Members briefly
discussed this issue.
Chappell spoke to Dilkes' memo regarding campaign contribution limits and that no changes
appear to be needed here. Kubby stated that she has some questions regarding Citizens
Untied vs. the FEC, that the popular interpretation of this is that 'money is speech, and you can't
limit speech.' She then questioned how they can have a limit on contributions. Dulek
responded that it has to do with spending the money, versus giving it to someone — contribution
versus expenditure. The question was raised as to whether the current amount is agreeable,
especially since it has not been changed for the past ten years. Chappell stated that he is, that
he believes limiting the amount is a good thing. Kubby stated that even with this limit,
candidates have still been able to raise fair amounts.
Next Chappell reviewed Dilkes' memo regarding initiative and referendum. The first issue — the
requirement that petitions be signed by qualified electors. There is no constitutional problem
with this. Second, is the requirement in the Charter that petition circulators be qualified electors
legal. The response from Dilkes was probably not, with her reasoning analysis suggesting no.
PAGE 4
Charter Review Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 3
Kubby stated that another questions was should there be any kind of qualification, such as
residency. Chappell stated that they can either discuss this now or when they get to this
section. He suggested that if Members have specific questions about Dilkes' memo, they
should ask those of Asst. City Atty. Dulek at this point.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Specific Sections to be Addressed:
* Additional Commission discussion of Preamble through Article VI —
Craig asked at this point if they are open to going to other groups, such as what the
League is suggesting. Chappell stated that he believes they should be open to speaking
with or listening to anyone with interest in their mission. He believes the question
becomes are they going to do this as a group or individually. He stated that he has not
had any other requests. Karr stated that she has received several inquiries, where some
groups are waiting for the initial review to be completed before they will be wanting to
take part in some kind of conversation. Chappell suggested that the initial public hearing
very well may help shape the major discussion from that point forward. Atkins noted that
if a neighborhood association, for example, wanted to share their feedback, one of the
Commission Members could be assigned to attend a meeting and listen to what the
residents have to say. Then the Member could report back to the Commission.
* Article VII — Initiative and Referendum -
Chappell then moved to Section 7.01A for review and read this aloud. He asked Dulek
how much of this section is dictated by State Code. She responded that she believes it
all to be organic as the initiative and referendum are really a City creation, but that she
would have to double-check this. Chappell then asked Karr if Section 7.01A(3) has
changed much — the definition, the measure, and the limitations thereof. Karr responded
that she did not believe it had changed much, other than the last noted change.
Members briefly discuss the wording here. Karr added that at the last review this
change was seen as more of a clarification than anything else. Chappell asked if
anyone had any questions about the distinction between initiative and referendum. He
gave Members some examples of an initiative versus a referendum — proactive versus
reactive. Members discussed this issue, noting what a citizen can do if they are wanting
to change a law or enact a law.
The conversation then turned to the issue of the signatories having to be qualified
electors, as opposed to eligible electors. Chappell noted that this is different from the
requirements to change the Charter, which are set by State Code. Sullivan stated that
he believes the current rules to be problematic in that they defy the spirit of the Election
Day registration law, which he believes is meant to make it as easy as possible for
citizens to participate in democracy. Members continued to address this issue, speaking
to 'eligible' voters versus 'qualified' ones. This led to the discussion of residents who
may not be U.S. citizens. Vanderhoef stated that she would be asking people this
question, first thing, before having them sign a petition.
Craig spoke to the issue of getting people registered to vote, while attempting to gain
signatures on a petition. She noted that this is a good way to get people more involved
and to get them registered to vote. Sullivan noted that he too wants to see more
involvement, but that he does not believe the current system is working. Karr spoke to
PAGE 5
Charter Review Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 4
the procedure her office follows in ordering voter rolls once the petitions are turned in.
Chappell stated that he believes the same -day voter registration process definitely
makes it easier now, getting people more involved and paying attention to what is
happening where they live. Sullivan stated that he believes it can still happen where you
sign someone up to vote, and yet they still do not actually go out and vote. Chappell
stated that at least if they are registered, they are saying they might vote — that there is a
better chance they will. Sullivan spoke to the younger generation of voters and how he
believes they approach it. He believes they need to make it easier for people to
participate in their democracy, but that they also need to be aware of whom they are
affecting in real terms.
Chappell asked Karr about the petition process, more specifically how long before she
checks the voter registration against the signatures. She responded that once the
process starts you have a certain number of days to return it, followed by a set number
of days to certify the petition, and then it is deemed either 'sufficient' or 'insufficient.' The
petitioner is then allowed a second chance to get the required signatures, if needed.
The conversation continued, with Members addressing the various issues at play here.
Being a university city, the student population is one issue, while the transient nature of
many of the residents is another when it comes to being a registered voter. Chappell
noted that with two Members absent today, they will definitely need to have this
conversation again, letting them weigh in on these issues as well.
The conversation then turned to 7.01B(1), with Sullivan reading this section aloud to the
Commission. Members briefly discussed this subsection, moving on then to (2).
Questions arose over the time period, with Karr clarifying how the Council handled the
sunset clause provisions. Kubby spoke to how this has come into play with issues such
as the 21-ordinance. She gave examples of how a two-year time period is really not that
long, adding that it should be at least a 4-year period. Shaw noted that people could, if
they wanted, use that to their advantage — having initiatives around the clock, knowing
that it takes four years. They could then work hard to get a Councilor elected that
agrees with them, continuing the initiative. Kubby stated that it is quite an organizational
task to do this, and that it would take a larger group to accomplish it.
Chappell stated that he is open to more than two years, and Sullivan stated that a
Council term (four years) sounds reasonable to him. Vanderhoef stated that she is still a
bit concerned about unintended consequences of such changes. Members continued to
discuss two years versus four years, and how this might affect citizens trying to make
changes. The majority of Members appeared to find two years too short, but they
struggled over a specific timeframe. Building a review period into the wording was also
discussed as a possible measure. Chappell noted the meeting time and that they need
to wrap things up. He asked if everyone was agreeable to stop at this point and begin
with 7.01 C at the next meeting.
b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows):
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
Craig stated that she noticed in the information they received about the previous Charter
Review Commission that they meet the day before and the day after their public forum. She
asked why this occurred and if they should be considering something like this. Karr responded
PAGE 6
Charier Review Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 5
that that particular commission had finished early, so they decided to finish their overall report
and end the commission's time. She stated that they also used subcommittees to work on
specific issues, and in general had a quicker turnaround time. Kubby stated that it would be a
good idea to meet fairly soon after the public forum, while ideas are still fresh in everyone's
mind. Chappell suggested that Members bring their calendars to the next meeting so that they
might look at dates and get something pinned down. Karr noted that as they approach fall they
can still use the second and fourth Tuesday meeting times, but that Members need to let her
know if their schedules change. Chappell stated that he will not be able to meet for six to eight
days after their public hearing date, as he will be out of state. Karr then asked if there were any
comments regarding the approach for the September forum. Craig noted that on page 59, there
needs to be an "A" in front of Community Forum. Also at the bottom of the page it says "board,"
and Craig suggested this say "Commission" instead. Karr asked if Members want the
September 23 forum taped or broadcast live. This was briefly discussed, with Members
agreeing that they would prefer taped for further rebroadcast. Chappell asked that on the next
meeting's agenda, Karr add under "Public Involvement" a separate bullet for setting a tentative
date for their second forum. Vanderhoef then asked if they could check with Public TV about
listing at the end of their meeting two or three times that they know the public forum will be
rebroadcast. Karr stated that she will check into this, but that Public TV doesn't always know
the exact schedule on these types of rebroadcast. She added that they could add a graphic at
the end of the taped broadcast with these dates.
•211;111 LeXeSIuRTU4►t6
None.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesdav of each
month):
August 26
September 9
September 23 — tentative public forum (proposed start time of 7:00 P.M.)
October 14
October 28
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion
carried 7-0, Schantz and Stone absent.
PAGE 7
Charter Review Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
o
O
o
o
O
o
O
o
A
1
w
1
NAME
EXP.
O
co
a
w
N
-a
O
N
A
N
N
N
N
w
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
—X--X
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
O/
Schantz
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
--X--X
--X--X
X
O/
Moyer
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
-X
Dee
4/1/15
-X-
X
X
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key,
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
PAGE 8
Marian Karr
From: Tom Carsner <carsner@mchsi.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:12 PM
To: City Charter
Subject: Proposals for City Charter
To the City Charter Commission:
I urge you to consider two revisions to the Iowa City Charter.
1. Institute a strong citizen -elected mayor form of city council. The mayor should be elected by citizens and be
a full-time position with a full-time salary. The council members should be paid a higher salary with more
frequent meetings equivalent to a one -quarter time position. Our present city manager form of government
puts too much power into the position of manager and the staff. The council tends to be passive due to low
salary and relatively small time commitment compared to the city manger and staff. The unelected city
manager and staff has too much power in our present structure. They are unelected. My proposal returns more
power to a strong mayor and stronger council.
2. Return to the standard of eligible elector for those who may sign city petition and referendum
documents. Registration to vote is not equivalent to citizenship. Those not registered to vote need to be able to
participate in government.
Ton Carsner
1627 College Court Place
Iowa City, Iowa
319-338-9335
carsner@nichsi.com mchsi.com
PAGE 9
From commission Member Mark Schantz
Redistributed from 8/12 meeting
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
PAGE 10
From Commission Member Mark Schantz
Redistributed from 8/12 meeting
Electing theivlayor- Possible Amendiliefits 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.
SI-It'tio- 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. iviayorfleeted ai-taige; At each, egulal election the'voters of the eityshallelecta mayoi ---
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.
r PAGE 11
^ili p°�'�r CITY OF IOWA CITY0"" RA N U U
Date: August 21, 2014
To: Charter Review Commission
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Re: Forum - Update
The attached notice was distributed to the following:
City Hall bulletin boards and information desk
Staff of City Board and Commissions
Public Library Information Desk
Senior Center
Parks & Recreation
City buses
University Cambus
City website
Cable television
Press Release
Neighborhood Associations
Former Council Members
Charter Commission applicants
In addition to the notices you may wish to consider additional publicity for this forum or future
ones such as:
Guest editorial / letter to the editor
Radio Programs
Interviews
Public Service Announcements (PSA's)
Community organizations
The item will be discussed further at your August 26th meeting.
PAGE 12
We invite YOU to attend.
The City of Iowa City
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
COMMUNITY INPUT FORUM
WHEN: Tuesday,
TIME: 7:00 PM
September 23, 2014
WHERE: City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E Washington Street, IC
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
id the City Charter at www.icgov.orq under City Charter or at the Citv Clerk's office in C
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS:
Send your questions or comments to the following by Monday,
September 15th, for consideration by the Commission:
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.