HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-23-2014 Charter Review Commission ForumMOM,L, JIM- alzialb
KAI 1111its Ito] a
ITEM NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER
ITEM NO. 2 INTRODUCTION OF BOARD & BRIEF OVERVIEW
ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC DISCUSSION
ITEM NO. 4 ADJOURNMENT
Marian Karr
From: Judith Pfohl <judypfohl@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03. 2014 5:42 PM
To: City Charter
Subject: City Charter comments
I think we have a very effective city government and should not make any changes.
Judy Pfohl
2229 Abbey Lane
Iowa City, IA 51146
p =•
m_
p
Yi
cl
D
D p g
r
c
O
O W R
3
C
N
rD
0 Q\
Q
-i
rt
N
J
a
<
O
<
M
O N
v`rti
N
n
n
rt
'^
0
M
x
x
n
rt
X
v
-i
n
X X
J
(D
Marian Karr M(6)
From:
Marian Karr
Sent:
Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
'Rod Sullivan'
Cc:
Council
Subject:
RE: Charter Ideas
Thank you for your email. This letter will be forwarded to the Charter Review Commission for consideration during their
review.
Marian K. Karr, MIMIC
City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Rod Sullivan (mailto:rodsuilivan@mchsi.com)
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:32 PM
To: Council
Subject: Charter Ideas
This correspondence will become a public record.
Dear Council:
I applied to serve on the Iowa City Charter Review Commission. lust as I suspected, I was not selected to serve. I will
admit, I was surprised that I was one of only 8 of the 26 applicants that received ZERO votesl
In all sincerity, I think I had a lot to offer this Commission. I'm a 30 year resident. I spend more time 'in the weeds' of the
structure and function of local governments than almost anyone I know. I live this stuff.
Despite not getting the Commission nod, I still have several changes I'd like to see. Here are a few of the major items:
1. Iowa City should maintain the size of the Council at seven. Maintain a balance between At -Large councilors and
councilors representing Wards.
(There should be either three or four Wards; no more, no less.) A directly elected Mayor shall serve in one of the At -
Large seats.
Rationale: A Council smaller than seven lacks representation; larger becomes unwieldy. A mix of At -Large and Ward
representation balances geographic diversity with the ability to elect the best people regardless of where they live.
While the Mayor holds no particular power relative to other councilors, she/he is the face of the city, and should be
chosen by the people.
2. Only Ward residents get to vote for candidates running to represent those Wards.
Rationale: Voting in Iowa City has always been too confusing.
3. Eliminate the Council Primary; instead, institute instant run off voting (IRV).
Rationale: How many times have we seen a non -serious candidate gather enough signatures, thus forcing an expensive
primary? In addition, with IRV voters could exercise both their heads and their hearts while voting. Often two similar
candidates split the vote, handing the election to a candidate that most voters wanted to finish last. IRV allows your vote
`.o be recorded in exactly such a way.
4. Put all city offices on the general election ballots with governor and president. Stagger it so that the Mayor, an At -
Large seat, and 2 Ward seats are elected in Presidential years. Then elect 2 At -Large seats and a Ward seat each
Gubernatorial year.
Rationale: Turnout in municipal elections is AWFUL. Turnout in Statewide elections is much better. If we want people to
vote, this is the way. It would also decrease costs.
5. The Iowa City definition of "qualified" electors flies in the face of Iowa's Election Day voter registration law. This must
be changed to include all eligible voters.
Rationale: 1 believe this is illegal, and should be challenged in court by the ACLU. It would be easier and nicer if Iowa City
simply fixed it.
6. Allow for citizens to petition for elections in which they could hold votes of no confidence in the City Manager, City
Attorney and Chief of Police.
Rationale: These positions have a tremendous impact on our civil rights, yet we have virtually zero say in their
employment. Right now, to fire a Police Chief, you would need to elect 4 councilors who would vote to fire the City
Manager unless he decides to fire the Police Chief. It ain't gonna happen.
So why not allow the public to weigh in? Even if the results were non -binding, the public should be able to speak out.
7. Petitions should be able to address issues of state and federal law.
Rationale: There is no compelling reason NOT to allow the public to speak its' mind. Requirements are already high (25%
of the turnout of the last election, or 2,500 minimum). If enough eligible electors sign a petition, their issue should be
heard. Iowa City may not be able to do much about the issue, but at least the City has not muted the voices of its'
citizens.
8. Increase Council pay to at least $25,000 per year.
Rationale: Under the current system, only two groups of people can really afford to serve and serve well - wealthy folks
and/or retired folks. By paying better, we could attract a more diverse set of candidates. This would also allow some
workers to go part time and focus more energy on Council business. Councilors who really objected to that level of
compensation could always donate the pay to the library, parks, or another worthy cause.
Those are my thoughts for Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Rod Sullivan
2326 E. Court St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-7199
03.25.14
Karr
From:
Marian Karr
Sent:
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:44 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Direct Election of Mayor on Ballot?
----- -------
From: Marian Karr
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 4:44 PM
To: 'stewartchristine06O@gmalf.com'
CC: Council
Subject: Direct Election of Mayor on Ballot?
Thank you for your email. The City Attorney and myself will staff the Commission which will begin meeting in April. All
meeting agendas and materials will be posted on the City website, and you may subscribe under E-Subscriptions on the
City site:
http://www.iowa-city.orm/icgov/apps/subscribe
Within the next few weeks the site will include the Charter, the Citizens Guide to the Charter, past minutes of previous
Commissions, as well as the names of the past members. Agenda and meeting packets for all future meetings will be
located on the site.
You will note that Article Vill of the Charter addresses how the charter can be amended.
Marian K. Karr, MMC
City Clerk
From: Christine Stewart [mailto:stewartchristine060@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:17 PM
To: Council
Subject: Direct Election of Mayor on Ballot?
Dear Iowa City Council:
Back in my student days, I learned that Iowa City and Sioux City are the only cities in Iowa that do not allow its
citizens to directly elect their mayor. I did a little research just the other day and was surprised to learn this is
no longer true. Sioux City voted in 2006 to have the citizens directly elect their mayor. So it appears now Iowa
City stands alone in the state of Iowa in not allowing direct election of the Mayor.
Could someone on your staff tell me why the City Council cannot do the same thing here? Waiting for a
decade for a charter review process seems less democratic than just letting the people vote on the mayor
election issue. The appointment by the current Council of several unelected Charter Review members (past
councilors, retired City Manager) that perhaps have a direct interest in maintaining the status quo does not
guarantee the mayoral election issue will be even dealt with in whatever new charter draft they come up
with. And I assume the citizens do not vote to approve the new Charter after the committee finishes its work,
that it Is instead approved by the Council that appointed the members? With this system of self -perpetuation,
perhaps it is no surprise that the Mayor election issue and other representation issues were not dealt with in
all these intervening decades.
I am sure I do not understand it completely, but this entire Charter Review process seems another way to
obstruct the citizens of Iowa City from deciding their own representatives directly. I can't imagine why the
governing class at the time (the 60's?) came up with this particular charter system, unless they didn't trust the
wisdom of the people to elect their own mayor and also feared the alderman/district representative
system. They diluted direct geographical representation by having the entire city vote on district
representatives after a primary (if held). I have never heard of another municipal governance system like Iowa
City's. Ironically, although we are citizens of one of the most highly educated cities in the country, the original
charter writers seemed to have very little confidence in the ability of Iowa City residents to govern themselves
without a lot of these built in "safeguards" (obstacles).
My question: Is there some reason why this mayor election issue just cannot be put on the next general
election ballot for the people to decide as it was done in Sioux City?
In addition, could someone direct me to any historical documents which might exist that list the original
Charter members and any background/history on their reasoning for creating such a system? I have to believe
there was some reason for it, and would like background on it. I would like to know the names and titles of
the original members to discern whether they might have been from Iowa City's governing "elite" class at the
time (University professors, attorneys, League of Women Voters, etc.) and might have been fearful of the
wisdom of the "unwashed masses"? Are minutes available online of past Charter Review committees through
the decades so I could view their thoughts on why they maintained this system? I am curious why so many
handpicked committee members decided to maintain the system, whether the issue was thoughtfully debated
or whether they were just there to rubber stamp the status quo.
I am curious and would appreciate a response by you or your legal aides. Thank you for your service.
Christine Stewart, Iowa City
Marian Karr
From: Robert Givens <robgive@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:46 PM
' 0: City Charter
Subject: Proposed Amendment to Iowa City Charter
Iowa City City Council Should Amend the Home Rule Charter
The Iowa City Charter draws a distinction between "eligible electors" and "qualified electors." The former
designation refers to those who are eligible to vote but have not registered; the latter refers to those who are
registered to vote.
The citizen -initiated process of proposing new measures to the City Council or having existing measures
reconsidered as defined in Article VII of the Charter provides that petitions for initiative and referendum may
only contain the signatures of `qualified electors'. The Hawkeye Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
believes that this designation creates an artificial and harmful obstacle to participation of the general public in
making changes to the City Code.
Residents of Iowa City who meet the requirements for voting have the right to have their views on significant
issues known, and to influence public policy through initiative and referendum petitions. It is difficult enough to
secure the signatures and verify that signers live in Iowa City; ensuring that they are registered creates an undue
burden on petitioners. Since current Iowa law provides for election day voter registration, the distinction
between residents who are registered and those who are not is not significant and should be eliminated.
The current language is particularly problematic because it effectively requires the City to go through every
signature on the petition in order to match it with a corresponding voting registration record. Not only is this an
expensive and time consuming process (it takes the City Clerk's office up to two weeks to verify a petition's
sufficiency), it also virtually guarantees that the City will strike out a significant percentage of valid signatures
because of something as simple as change of address or illegible (from the City Clerk's point of view)
handwriting. And, of course, it guarantees that signatures of Iowa City citizens otherwise eligible to vote who
have not yet registered will not be counted.
In essence, the City is currently denying legitimate petitioners their voice in the matter in an attempt to prevent
potential fraud that is in the end inconsequential: a petition is not the same as a law, but only a proposal before
the city council or the voters. If the petition is misguided, frivolous or simply not worthy of citizens' attention, it
Imply will not be adopted by the council or the voters. There is no need to protect us from ourselves.
The Code of Iowa regarding petitioning by citizens, Chapter 364.2, uses the term `eligible voters' and contains
no mention of `qualified voters'. Additionally, Chapter 362.4 states:
"The petition shall be examined before it is accepted for filing. If the petition appears valid on its face it shall be
accepted for filing. If it lacks the required number of signatures it shall be returned to the petitioner. Petitions
which have been accepted for filing are validunless ivritten objections are filed with the city clerk within five
working days after the petition is received "
The Hawkeye Chapter believes that the language above provides for a more reasonable and democratic process,
and urges the Iowa City Council to amend the City Charter to eliminate the anachronistic "qualified elector"
distinction and make the Charter follow the current Iowa Code, Chapter 362.4.
Robert Givens, President, Haivkeye Chapter, ACLU -Iowa, on behalf of the Board of Directors
Jame 16, 2014
Marian Karr
From: Russell Haught <russups06@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 8:55 PM
To: City Charter
Subject: City Charter Changes
Anyone on the city council should have limit of serving ONLY 2 consecutive terms. Then you may not seek a city council
position for 5 years. Mayor should be elected not chosen by city council members.
Russell Haught
Sent from my Wad
Marian &arr
From: Betty Dye <bettydye@mediacombb.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:00 AM
To: City Charter
Subject: Mayor
I would like to make known my concern regarding the way our Iowa City major is selected. I firmly believe he/she
should be elected directly by the residents of Iowa City. He/she should NOT be chosen from among the council
members.
Thank you for the opportunity to make my wishes known.
Betty Dye
Marian Karr
From: Dieterle, Caroline M <caroline-dieterle@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:44 AM
To: City Charter
Subject: "Qualified Electors" vs. "Eligible Electors"
Dear Charter Commission:
As some of you know by now, I strongly feel that the Charter should have the "Qualified Elector" distinction
removed from the Charter and that the petition process for initiative and referendum should simply follow
Chapter 362.4 of the Code of Iowa.
Here are my reasons:
1. The same -day register and vote capability we now have in Iowa removes the distinction between "qualified"
and "eligible", in that anyone who is not already registered to vote in Iowa City at the time he/she signs a
petition can both register and vote as late as Election Day by registering when he/she goes to the polls.
2. Petitions for amending the Charter do not make the"Qualified" vs. "Eligible" distinction. Surely amending
the Charter is as important as the initiative and referendum process.
3. Iowa City is growing. There are many more people here than there were when the Charter was adopted in the
1970's. This means that the requirement that petitions have signers in the number of at least 25% of the voters in
the most recent City election will become harder and harder to satisfy. The 25% should be changed to 10%
(Chapter 362.4 of the Code of Iowa). The job of gathering the signatures of 10% of the voters at the previous
^ity election will not be undertaken lightly by any individual or group - even if the "qualified" distinction is
:enioved.
3. The existence of the "Qualified" requirement means that any signature gatherer must gather nearly twice the
25% number in order to be assured that the total will be sufficient. The process of checking signatures against
voting lists will take longer and longer - costing more and more of the City Clerk's staff s time. The added
requirements that the signatures must be gathered within a set time period, and that all persons circulating
petitions must file affadavits, make the task almost impossible. In the 2 years between elections, many
registered citizens move to new residences - so that their signatures no longer match the voter rolls, and their
signatures can be discounted.
The City Clerk should not be required to do anything more than check the petitions to make sure there is a
sufficient number of signatures on properly prepared petition forms, so that the petition is "adequate on its face"
(Chapter 362.4).
"362.4 PETITION OF ELIGIBLE ELECTORS.
If a petition of the voters is authorized by the city code, the
petition is valid if signed by eligible electors of the city equal in
number to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding
regular city election, but not less than ten persons, unless
otherwise provided by state law. The petition shall include the
signatures of the petitioners, a statement of their place of
residence, and the date on which they signed the petition.
The petition shall be examined before it is accepted for filing.
If the petition appears valid on its face it shall be accepted for
filing. If it lacks the required number of signatures it shall be
returned to the petitioner.
Petitions which have been accepted for filing are valid unless
written objections are filed with the city clerk within five working
days after the petition is received. The objection process in
section 44.8 shall be followed."
Citizens of Iowa City who are willing to exert the effort to circulate petitions are not irresponsible or stupid. We
do not need to be protected from ourselves: if a petition with sufficient signatures of "Eligible " electors is filed,
as laid out in the Code of Iowa, citizens deserve the right to vote on the petition's proposal.
There is an on -going public lament about the lack of citizen involvement in civic affairs and voter apathy in
local elections as evidenced by the poor voter -turnout percentage. There is a reason for that: the Iowa City
Home Rule Charter that frames our city government is currently structured in such a way that activism is
viewed as hopeless, a waste of time, by too many citizens. Removing the "Qualified Elector" distinction would
be one small step to counter this.
Caroline Dieterle
727 Walnut St.
Iowa City,
Iowa
Ph.# 319-325-0616
PAGE 9
Marian Karr
From: L Schreiber <Inschreiber@gmaiLcorn>
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 LWVJC 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 bearing offered by the City Charter Commission would be decidedly different from one sponsored by the
LWVJC. A League of Wonletn Voters founn is moderated by a League member. The forum allows invited
speakers, in this case City Charter Commission members, to make initial, shot presentations. Forum guests are
then presented with a series of questions that have been presented by the public via the moderato.
Our organization encourages citizens to become informed and actively participate in the govermnental 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 govermmiental bodies and / or with legislators. It's "business as usual" for our
nonpartisan League.
Linda
PAGF 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:
1 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 fill -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.
Toni Carsner
1627 College Court Place
Iowa City, Iowa
319-338-9335
carsner tr mchsi.com
PAGE d
Marian Karr
From: Rod Sullivan <rodsullivan@mchsi.com>
gent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:48 PM
Po: City Charter
subject: Charter Review Comments
Dear Charter Review Commission:
My name is Rod Sullivan, and I live at 2326 East Court Street in Iowa City.
I have been a resident of Iowa City for just over 30 years. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Iowa City
Charter.
Please allow me to begin by thanking you for your service. I also applied to serve; as I suspected, I was not selected. I
think I had a lot to offer your Commission. I spend more time'in the weedsz of the structure and function of local
governments than almost anyone I know. I live this stuff.
Despite not getting the Commission nod, I still have several changes I'd like to see, Here are a few of the major items:
1. Iowa City should maintain the size of the Council at seven. Maintain a balance between At -Large councilors and
councilors representing Wards.
(There should be either three or four Wards; no more, no less.) A directly elected Mayor should serve in one of the At -
Large seats.
Rationale: A Council smaller than seven lacks representation; larger becomes unwieldy. A mix of At -Large and Ward
vepresentation balances geographic diversity with the ability to elect the best people regardless of where they live.
While the Mayor holds no particular power relative to other councilors, she/he is the face of the city, and should be
chosen by the people,
2. Only Ward residents get to vote for candidates running to represent those Wards.
Rationale: Voting in Iowa City has always been too confusing.
3. Eliminate the Council Primary; instead, institute instant run off voting (IRV).
Rationale: How many times have we seen a non -serious candidate gather enough signatures, thus forcing an expensive
primary? In addition, with IRV voters could exercise both their heads and their hearts while voting. Often two similar
candidates split the vote, handing the election to a candidate that most voters wanted to finish last. IRV allows your vote
to be recorded in exactly such a way.
4. Put all city offices on the general election ballots with Governor and President, Stagger it so that the Mayor, an At -
Large seat, and 2 Ward seats are elected in Presidential years. Then elect 2 At -Large seats and a Ward seat each
Gubernatorial year.
Rationale: Turnout In municipal elections is AWFUL. Turnout in Statewide elections is much better. If we want people to
vote, this Is the way. It would also decrease costs.
5. The Iowa City definition of "qualified" electors flies in the face of Iowa's Election Dayvoter registration law. This must
be changed to include all eligible voters.
Rationale: I believe this Is illegal, and should be challenged In court by the ACLU. It would be easier and nicer if Iowa City
simply fixed it.
PAGE 9
6. Allow for citizens to petition for elections in which they could hold votes of no confidence in the City Manager, City
Attorney and Chief of Police.
3ationale: These positions have a tremendous impact on our civil rights, yet we have virtually zero say in their
employment. Right now, to fire a Police Chief, you would need to elect 4 councilors who would vote to fire the City
Manager unless he decides to fire the Police Chief. it ain't gonna happen.
So why not allow the public to weigh in? Even if the results were non -binding, the public should be able to weigh in.
7. Petitions should be able to address issues of state and federal law.
Rationale: There is no compelling reason NOT to allow the public to speak its' mind. Requirements are already high (25%
of the turnout of the last election, or 2,500 minimum). If enough eligible electors sign a petition, their issue should be
heard. Iowa City may not be able to do much about the issue, but at least the City has not muted the voices of its'
citizens.
8. Increase Council pay to at least $25,000 per year.
Rationale: Under the current system, only two groups of people can really afford to serve and serve well - wealthy folks
and/or retired folks. By paying better, we could attract a more diverse set of candidates. This would also allow some
workers to go part time and focus more energy on Council business. Councilors who really objected to that level of
compensation could always donate the pay to the library, parks, or another worthy cause.
Those are my thoughts for Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Rod Sullivan
2326 E. Court St.
Iowa City
CKiLtiI►ri1f.X`I[�7►1
m
M
0
O
w�
M
p
O
rD?
VI
m
3
o 'a
p
m
•< <
o
p
V1
p
Yk
N
0
N
<
VI
N
;U z a D p
3 c o o v
ID
< fD to 0 fD ,
9 O a (D
m
°a° IDa o
iU M 9
? C H n n
N C N
H N
3
fD
3
<
°
3
<
°
n
o
a
x
R. Givens
x
R. Haught
x
B. Dye
x
C. Dierterle
L. Schreiber
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
R. Sullivan
x
C. Stewart
x
x
T. Carsner
x
J. Pfohl
x
x
x
x
H.Olmstead
x
x
x
x
x
C. deProsse
x
x
M.Norbeck
Marian Karr
From: Judith Pfohl <judypfohl@gmail. com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 5:42 PM
o: City Charter
Subject: City Charter comments
I think we have a very effective city government and should not make any changes.
Judy Pfohl
2229 Abbey Lane
Iowa City, IA 51146
Marian Karr
From: Harry03 <Harry03@ao1.com>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 9:36 AM
To: City Charter
Subject: Fwd: City Charter
Please see below.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smarrtphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Harry03
Date:09/12/2014 9:30 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: city-charter@iowa-city.org
Subject: City Charter
I hope that the City Charter would change our present non-represenatve way of electing the Mayor and
members of the City Council to a more represenative way. This would require the Mayor to be elected by the
voters of all registered voters witin the City and the City Council be elected by precincts in which they reside.
The City Charter Committee could draw up the boundaries for the precints in the City. This would given voters
better representation and diversity in City Government. The term for the Mayor and City Council members
should be 3 or 4 years and also set by the City Charter committee. The longer term would give us more
consistent and educated electors.
Harry Olmstead.
1951 Hannah Jo CT.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Marian Karr
From:
Carol deProsse <Ionetreefox@mac.com>
Sent:
Monday, September 15, 2014 12:42 PM
To:
City Charter
Subject:
Charter Changes
Dear Members of the 2014 Charter Commission:
In 1972, when Iowa City voters elected to be governed by Home Rule it was an historic vote. Today, there are
only five cities in Iowa that are governed by Home Rule. We can consider ourselves fortunate to have been so
forward thinking 42 years ago! We must continue to promote Home Rule (self -governance to the extent allowed
by law) to its fullest meaning.
Although there are a couple of changes I would like to see to the Charter such as making district representation
actual representation from the districts in which the candidate runs, as opposed to being elected at large after the
primary, and having an elected Mayor form of govermnent, the most important one in my opinion is to change
the number of signatures required to put something to a vote of the people under the provision of Initiative and
Referendum; voting is a fundamental right in a democracy and should be easier rather than harder to do.
As the Charter is written now, citizens cannot affect any of the following:
Any measure of an executive or administrative nature;
The city budget;
The appropriation of money;
The levy of taxes or special assessments;
The issuance of general obligation and revenue bonds;
The letting of contracts;
Salaries of city employees;
Amendments to the Charter;
Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law;
Amendments affecting the city zoning ordinance of the land use maps of the comprehensive plan, including the
district plan maps; and
Public improvements subsequent to city council action to authorize acquisition of property for that public
improvement, or notice to bidders for that pubic improvement whichever occurs earlier. "Public Improvement'
shall mean any building or construction work.
City residents are already greatly constrained as to what they can do under their Home Rule Charter, but what is
cited above likely sounds reasonable to most people. However, regarding things citizens can do under Home
Rule to amend the Charter, a petition needs signatures representing ten percent of "eligible" voters, but to
propose something under Initiative and Referendum, petitions must be signed by qualified electors (registered
voters) equal in number to twenty five percent (25%) of persons who voted in the "last regular City election,"
but no fewer than two thousand five hundred (2,500) qualified electors.
Unless you have gathered signatures yourself to either amend the Charter or propose something under Initiative
and Referendum, you do not know how much time and effort it takes to get even 1,000 people to sign a petition,
much less 10% of eligible electors or 25%, but not less than 2,500 signatures of qualified electors.
I think it is a worry that Charter Commission members need not have, that of thinking if it is "too easy" to
utilize the provision of Initiative and Referendum the City will be swamped with petitions. It just doesn't seem
reasonable to me to think that that most voters will sign their names to trivial petitions. As someone who has
gathered signatures in the past I would like to testify to how thoughtful people are before putting their names on
a petition and that it takes weeks of effort to gather sufficient signatures to make a `statement' of any kind.
It would be my suggestion that a meaningful change to our Charter and one that would make the definition of
Home Rule have true purpose, would be to require 2,500 signatures of eligible voters to either amend the
Charter or to propose something under Initiative and Referendum. Such as change would still require tens upon
tens of hours of citizen effort to bring an issue to the ballot box and it would save the office of the City Clerk
many days of verifying signatures, days that could be spent on other work required by the office.
Thank you for you consideration of my comments.
Carol deProsse
1401 Burry Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246-4513
319.337.0694
Marian Karr
From: Martha Norbeck <martha norbeck@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:46 AM
To: City Charter
Subject: Mayoral election - council member stipends
To the Members of the Iowa City Charter Review Commission:
Mayoral Election
I support changing the city charter to a directly elected mayor.
The current system shields the mayor from accountability to the voters. Because the mayor is elected
by his or her fellow council members, they become accountable to these council members and is less
likely to press opinions and ideas contrary to these members. I believe the mayor would be a more
effective leader if elected At -Large.
Compensation of Councilors
Council members should receive more compensation.
I served one term on the Fairfield City Council. We received a $150 per month stipend. When faced
with the choice of directing my time and attention to my full-time job or my council duties, it was
difficult to choose council duties. Iowa City Council members are regularly asked to review council
packets in. excess of 300 pages. The current stipend makes it very difficult to prioritize council work
over paid work. The low stipend discourages working professionals from running for office.
I have considered running for office, but I can't. Dedication to serving on council requires 15-20
hours a week. The only way I could possibly do this would be to grow my business enough so that
my employees could take over half of my workload. Inadequate compensation limits the pool of
council candidates. It favors those who are wealthy in either time or money.
I support having council members with more diverse opinions and life experiences. This will not
occur with the current stipend model.
Sincerely,
Martha Norbeck
906 S. 7°i Ave.
Iowa City, IA
Chris Piker
236 Raven Street
Iowa City, Iowa
cpikeman@q.com
City Charter Review Committee
citycharter@iowa-city.org
Re: Four District Proposal
As Iowa City continues to grow the ability of councilors to become familiar with all the regions in their
district and to be responsive to the residents, businesses and organizations in their district has been
diluted, The current district cover too many different geographic regions and populations for
councilors to focus on appropriate local solutions. I propose that to improve citizen representation, the
city be divided into 4 districts instead of 3.
The new district, call it District D, would be composed of the central precincts, most likely
precincts 03, 05, 11, 19, 20.
• One at -large seat would become the District D seat, maintaining the current size of the Council.
• Districts A, B, and C would keep their relative positions but would give up some precincts to
the new district D and there may be some shifting of the boarders between A, B and C.
I've lived on the east side of Iowa City for over 12 years and have not noticed any attempts at outreach
by my representative on the Council. In the past, policies which would have benefited the east side,
such as a branch library, have been actively opposed by the councilor for my district. I believe that
moving to smaller districts would help to create a council more representative of all of Iowa City.
Thanks for taking the time to consider this proposal. I am available for followup activities you may
request. My phone number is available on request though I do not wish to have it became part of the
public record.
Respectfully
Chris Piker
Sign in Sheet
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION COMMUNITY INPUT FORUM
September 23, 2014
NAME ADDRESS
1.
3. ��Ii12c�L.l,UC lE7-E4L-
4.
5.
6. o1 titI _ca-&rnj
8.
9. Uy,, ` Gc�
10. l 1 1 Ary7l ,- a
11.
12. CE � �Y ccfPjcvaJf
13.
14.
LV A /- /v u*r sT
Z 3 �
'ZG 2A �e i c soh 1
�o %- ,i�f /Inson
62
6136)r-,cwlRT