HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-30-2014 Charter Review CommissionTHE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, September 30, 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 09/9/14; 9/23/14 (Pages 2-13)
b. Correspondence
1. Chris Piker (Pages 14-15)
2. Sonia Ettinger (Page 16)
3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF
a. City Clerk Memo — Future playbacks for Community Input Forum (Page 17)
4. REVIEW PUBLIC FORUM INPUT OF SEPTEMBER 23 (Pages 18-24)
Correspondence received and accepted:
• Judy Pfohl
• Harry Olmstead
• Carol deProsse
• Martha Norbeck
• Chris Piker
5. REVIEW CHARTER
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
7. TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:30 AM unless specified)
October 14
October 28
November 25
December 9
December 23
[Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
8. ADJOURNMENT
PAGE 2
Charter Review Commission
September 9, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014-7:32 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz,
Melvin Shaw (arrived 7:38), Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee
Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
None
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 08/26/14
b. Correspondence — (1) Rod Sullivan — Chappell noted the correspondence
received from Sullivan, adding that some of what is in the correspondence
appears to be items brought up in his earlier correspondence. Kubby stated that
she would be glad to speak to Sullivan regarding instant run-off voting and why it
cannot be done. Chappell also noted Sullivan's mention of putting City offices on
the general election ballot, and how this is dictated by State law. Also noted was
the 'qualified elector' issue which the Commission continues to discuss; and 'no
confidence votes.' Dilkes noted how the Court has dealt with a similar issue in
the past. Chappell continued, noting that Sullivan also noted petitions that
address State and federal law. He added that nothing stops people from having
whatever petitions they want but the Council does not always have the power to
change things at those levels. An increase in Council pay was another
discussion topic, which the Commission has touched on briefly.
Atkins moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Vanderhoef.
Motion carried 9-0.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Nothing.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Specific Sections to be addressed:
* Memo re Follow Up to Home Rule / Initiative and Referendum
* Citizens Guide to the City Charter (w/timeline)
• Initiative & Referendum forms
Article VII — Initiative and Referendum — Chappell began the discussion by
reading Section 7.03. The discussion began with Chappell noting that in the
PAGE 3
Charter Review Commission
September 9, 2014
Page 2
packet is the timeline that is part of the Citizens Guide to the City Charter.
Vanderhoef stated that she noticed in the Citizens Guide that you don't have to
have the birthdate, and that many skip it. She wondered if the guide should
mention how the birthdate is used when a signature is illegible. Members
continued to discuss this issue, agreeing that encouraging petitioners to add their
birthdate can help in situations where a name is not able to be verified. Dilkes
noted that on page 7 of the Guide it notes that a birthdate is not required, but is
recommended, in order to help the City Clerk determine if a signer is a registered
voter or not. In response to Atkins, Dilkes noted that most of the verbiage came
from a model charter back when the first Commission began. Karr added that
there have been clarifiers added to the Charter since its adoption, but that it has
basically remained the same.
The discussion turned to Section A of 7.03, qualified versus eligible. Chappell
stated that they can discuss this further now if desired. He noted that they also
have the issue of the number of signatures — 25% of the number of persons who
voted in the last City election or a minimum of 2,500. In response to Chappell,
Karr responded that generally it's been 2,500. Sullivan added that the 2,500
number appears to be from about 25 years ago. Karr noted that they had a
2,800 requirement in 2000, 2,900 in 1989, 2,700 in 1983, and the remainder
were around 2,500, but never more than 2,900. Kubby noted that one of
Sullivan's points that was not brought up is changing the timing of the elections to
facilitate participation to be during even numbered years, versus odd numbered,
like the State and federal elections. Dilkes noted that the timing of City elections
is set by State code. Kubby asked if it would warrant making any changes to this
percentage if they were to go from qualified to eligible signatures on petitions.
Members continued to discuss this issue, questioning how the original
percentage was arrived at to begin with. Sullivan noted that if they do make
some changes, it could make it easier to get the necessary signatures.
Members continued to discuss qualified versus eligible, and whether this would
affect the percentage of signatures required for petitions. Karr clarified some
information for Members at this point, noting that there were 10 initiatives and
referendums in the City from 1977 to 2002. Of these 10, the required number of
signatures was 2,500 eight out of 10 times. The required number of signatures
on the remaining two were 2,525 and 2,667. She clarified that the numbers she
gave them earlier were the total numbers they got in, not the requirement. Kubby
asked what the 25% would have been versus the 2,500 minimum, and whether
this benchmark is too high or just right. Karr stated that they could go back and
calculate this, but her guess is that it would have been considerably lower. The
question was raised about how many initiatives and referendums there have
been since 2002, and Karr responded that she would have to calculate this, but
that at least a half dozen come to mind.
Caroline Dieterle, an audience member, asked if the numbers that are being
given are the successful signatures. Karr stated that she is referring to the initial
filing, but that she does have both sets of numbers. She gave the following
information: there were 10 from 1977 through 2002; out of those 10,
supplemental petitions were half of them; the five that were required to do this did
do so. Dieterle stated that her question gets to the concept of how many
PAGE 4
Charter Review Commission
September 9, 2014
Page 3
signatures actually had to be gathered in order to get the number that would
qualify for the ballot. Karr stated that she does not have this specific information
with her. Kubby stated that she believes when they have such a high benchmark
— the 2,500 and the qualified voters — that it says a lot about Iowa City as a
community, that there's this second chance. Dilkes stated that they were only
able to find one instance where those who submitted supplemental petitions did
not meet the required number.
Chappell then asked that they discuss the form and content of the petitions,
stating that this section is pretty mundane. He asked if people thought there
should be more, or less, on signature blocks. Craig asked Karr if her office, as
the ones who review and verify, believes this information is adequate. Karr
stated she felt the information was the minimum needed to verify the signatures,
and provided examples where the information made a difference in counting the
signatures, and noted the birthdate alone has been very helpful for her office.
Karr noted that some people believe birthdate to be a privacy issue which is part
of the reluctance in requiring this information. Vanderhoef stated that in looking
at the Guide, on page 5, where it states 'what is the role of the City Clerk,' she
spoke to the Clerk's office 'accepting' the petition. She asked if this isn't just the
cursory view, prior to a full verification of signatures. Dilkes clarified this further,
noting that the process begins once it appears the required number of signatures
has been met. Chappell asked if Members could agree to tentatively approve B,
the form and content, to which Members agreed they could.
Addressing Item C, Chappell noted that this is the one that Dilkes has
determined they need to change. She stated that the Commission needs to
decide if they want this to be 'eligible,' but that it cannot be 'qualified' in this
instance. Also needing a decision is whether or not to have a residency
requirement. This has come about due to a federal ruling. Members briefly
discussed this issue, with the majority agreeing that 'eligible' works. Kubby
stated that she would like to think about the age limit aspect of this.
Moving on to the timing issue — the timing to file an initiative and the timing for
filing a referendum — Chappell asked what Members' thoughts are. Kubby stated
that they began to discuss this earlier, that the two-year timeframe may not be
long enough to know if an ordinance, for example, is functioning well yet.
Members agreed to tentatively approve Item D and to hold off on E for now as
they contemplate the two-year timeframe. Revocation of Signature, F, was
looked at next. Chappell stated that he likes how this is written. Members
agreed to tentatively approve Item F.
Chappell stated that they want to try and get through the next two and a half
pages in the time they have left, and he asked if they wanted to continue reading
each of the sections, or to instead do a synopsis of the next two pages.
Members agreed that a synopsis would be agreeable. Karr briefly explained
what the process is once a petition has been filed and how signers are verified.
Chappell asked if anyone had any changes they would like to see in this section.
Chappell then spoke to the issue of a petition being certified insufficient and how
within two days the petitioner can request that it be reviewed by Council. He
PAGE 5
Charter Review Commission
September 9, 2014
Page 4
asked if the purpose of this review is to review the City Clerk's decision. Dilkes
responded that they have never had this happen during her tenure. Karr added
that it is an appeal process that basically gives the petitioner another opportunity
to appeal to a higher body. Karr stated that in 1995 they added the 'validity of
signature' section in order to better clarify names and to be less rigid in the
process. Chappell asked if there were any more specific questions about
Section 7.04. There was consensus from the Members to tentatively approve
this section.
Moving on to 7.05(A), Chappell explained that once a petition is found sufficient,
the Council either considers the initiative or reconsiders the referred measure. If
they fail to adopt it within 60 days, or fail to repeal it within 30 days it must be
submitted to the voters. Atkins stated that this means that the proposed item
must be placed on a Council agenda, as this would be the instrument to vote it
either up or down. Members were agreeable to tentatively approving 7.05(A).
Section 7.05(B) deals with the timing and Chappell read further, 'Regular City
election or general election, more than 40 days after the expiration of a 60-day
period, provided it is not filed too late.' He stated that these are basically time
limits on how long it takes to get on a ballot. Dilkes stated that they worked on
these 10 years ago in the review to tie these down. Chappell asked if the
Council could call a special election for the purpose of considering an initiative or
a referendum. Dilkes stated that they can with a referendum, but they cannot
with an initiative. Members spoke to this issue, questioning Dilkes and Karr on
the State requirements for elections. Looking at (C) briefly, Chappell asked if
there were any questions on Section 7.05(C). Members tentatively approved this
section.
Section 7.06 was reviewed, with Members asking for some clarification in the
wording. This section, both (A) and (B) were tentatively approved.
Chappell then moved to summarizing 7.07. Craig asked if the Council can
impose conditions that are lower or less stringent. Members reviewed the
wording here, agreeing that clarification is needed. Dilkes agreed that this is a
good question here. Atkins asked why they have all of their election law in the
Charter, instead of an ordinance or something that the Council can utilize. He
asked if there shouldn't be some sort of legislation that governs all of this.
Chappell stated that with initiative and referendum being so unique, you won't
find them in State law, first of all. He then gave some examples of issues that
could arise where it is a good idea to have initiative and referendum where they
are. Back to 7.07's wording, Chappell read: The Council may not set except by
Charter amendment conditions or requirements affecting initiative and
referendum which are higher or more stringent. He asked if they need to change
this, to broaden it some. Shaw questioned if changing the language would not
keep the Council from being able to do this. Kubby stated that they could still
make a change with a Charter amendment.
b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows):
PAGE 6
Charter Review Commission
September 9, 2014
Page 5
Chappell then asked Craig to read Section 8.01, Charter Amendments. Kubby
spoke first to this, asking why it has to be a special election here. Dilkes stated
that you can put a special election on the regular ballot in those cases. Dilkes
added that much of this section is set per State code, so not much else can be
done here. Schantz asked if the Council had ever acted to amend the Charter or
place a Charter amendment on the ballot without a petition or a Charter Review
recommendation. Dilkes said not in her memory. Caroline Dieterle, audience
member, stated that they are forgetting about the part of the Charter amendment
to make the Police Review Board a permanent part of the government. Dilkes
explained that that involved a citizen petition and the question being asked was
about amendments without a citizen petition. Members then tentatively approved
Section 8.01.
Moving on then to 8.02, Chappell asked Shaw to read this section aloud. The
discussion started over whether the Council could take recommendations made
to them and split them apart, where some would be done by amendment and
some by election. Dilkes stated that they could do this. Chappell questioned
some of the subsections and how they are being numbered.
Chappell noted that they have now completed their first pass of the Charter. He
asked if anyone had anything they wanted to discuss further at this time.
UPDATE OF PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS:
Chappell stated that he will be meeting with the Board of the League of Women Voters soon
and will see what they have in mind. He will let them know what type of public meetings the
Commission hopes to have. Chappell noted that the public forum is being held on September
23`d. The process is going to be basically the Commission listening and being informed as to
what the public thinks about anything related to the Charter. Then there will be a special
meeting on September 301h to review the public forum comments. Karr reiterated that they will
be taping the forum for rebroadcast at a later time. She also asked if Members would like to
have copies of all correspondence to date in the packet prior to this meeting. Sullivan stated
that it would be a good idea, as would the tally of issues they have brought up — to date if
possible.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Caroline Dieterle of 727 Walnut Street addressed the Members, stating that she barely knows
where to begin to criticize the Commission's discussion, or to add to it. She asked how many of
the Members have actually participated by being a petition circulator for an initiative or
referendum. Dieterle stated Kubby would be the only Commission member with some
conception of the difficulty that is involved here. Commission Member Craig stated she also
had been involved as a circulator. Dieterle continued, stating that the City of Iowa City, along
with its mayor and council type of government, are extremely resistant to change. She added
that it takes typically two election cycles to make any real dent on the composition of the
Council, and that everything develops from the Council through the City Manager. If you are
unhappy with the City Manager, she stated it can take two cycles to get a Council that would be
willing to make any changes. She reminded everyone that many issues come out at the
grassroots level and then develop as time goes by. One issue that took well over 4,000
signatures, just to get the 2,500 minimum required, was the red-light camera issue. Dieterle
PAGE 7
Charter Review Commission
September 9, 2014
Page 6
noted how difficult and time-consuming this was. She continued to speak to the issues of
petition circulation and the difficulties that arise. Dieterle stated that the State code does not
require 'qualified elector,' 362.4 — that 'eligible' is okay there. She stated that the ACLU has
written a letter to the City, asking that they change this.
Audience member Diane Henry stated that she concurs with what Dieterle said. She stated that
Dieterle has shared the sentiments of many here in Iowa City, particularly people who are
transient individuals in this area and yet want to be involved in the politics here. This
population's ability to be eligible versus qualified should allow them to be able to vote.
month): Chappell quickly reviewed the tentative meeting schedule, noting the September 23rd
public forum. Karr stated that depending on the duration of the meeting on the 23r0, she can't
guarantee turnaround time for minutes before the meeting on the 30`h. Looking at November
11, Karr noted that this is Veterans Day. The Commission agreed that they do not need to meet
November 11, and can decide later if they need to add an additional meeting.
Craig brought up a late correction to the minutes. On page 3, towards the bottom, it says "intent
to commerce" and should be "commence."
September 23 — evening public forum 7:00 P.M.
September 30
October14
October 28
November 25
December 9
December 23
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 A.M., seconded by Stone. Motion carried
9-0.
PAGE 8
Charter Review Commission
September 9, 2014
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAME
EXP.
w
w
o
p
N
to
w
to
w
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
Melvin
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1115
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
Moyers
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Kev:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
PAGE 9
Charter Review Commission
September 23, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION (Community Input Forum)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 — 7:00 P.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: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and welcomed those in
attendance.
INTRODUCTION OF BOARD & BRIEF OVERVIEW:
Chappell presented a brief overview of what the Commission's charge is — to review the Charter
and then make recommendations to the City Council for changes. The City Council then has
the option of either adopting the recommended changes as presented, or putting the
recommended changes out for a public vote. Chappell continued, stating that the Charter
Review Commission has been meeting every other week since May of 2014. The Commission
is reviewing the Charter line by line and discussing what — if any — changes they believe may
need to be made. Chappell noted that this is their first public forum, and that the Commission is
at the point where they would like to hear from the public. There will be a second public forum
later in the process.
Chappell noted that some of the larger issues the Commission has discussed so far include the
number of Council members there are; the split between at -large and district; Council salaries;
qualified electors versus eligible electors; and the election process of the mayor.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
John Balmer, 10 Princeton Ct„ thanked the Commission for their review of the Charter. He
stated that he strongly supports the Council/Manager form of government that Iowa City has
had for many years. He noted that next year, 2015, will mark the 40t' anniversary of the first
election of a seven -member Council, of which he was a member. Balmer gave some
background on how the four at -large and three district seats came about. He added that he
would encourage maintaining this aspect of the Charter. Balmer also spoke to the issue of how
the mayor is selected, adding that this process has been in place for over 50 years. He gave
some background on this, noting that the idea is to have someone who is part of the team and
can help the Council work together as a whole.
Bob Elliott, 1108 Dover St., also thanked the Commission for their work, noting that it is vitally
important for the City of Iowa City. He too believes the Council/Manager form of government
has served the City of Iowa City very well over the years. He added that he believes this form of
government enables and furthers the concept of 'citizen legislators.' Elliott stated that serving
as a member of the Council should not be a career, or even a part-time job. He believes that
serving on the Council is a privilege and a responsibility. Term limits is one area that Elliott
would like to see some changes to. As for the issue of mayoral selection, Elliott believes the
current process has served the City well and should be maintained. Elliott spoke to the way the
Council representation, at -large and the district, is set up. He believes this system works well
for the entire City and should be maintained. Elliott then spoke to the issue of petitions and
PAGE 10
Charter Review Commission
September 23, 2014
Page 2
registered voters. He believes that if people do not register to vote, then he would not be
interested to hear what they have to say.
Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., stated she has been active in city government issues since
1968. She explained that one of the most disturbing things to her about Iowa City when it
comes to examining voter statistics — who votes and where they live; who appears before the
Council; who runs for Council — is that they could be accused of having a government 'of the
elite, by the elite.' She believes that as the city continues to grow and the major issues become
more intense that this issue will become more of a problem. Dieterle believes that all of these
traditions they speak of need to be looked at more closely and decisions made as to whether or
not these things should continue. As for the selection of the mayor, Dieterle believes this
position should be elected by the people. Speaking to the district and at -large issues, and who
votes when, Dieterle stated that it gets terribly confusing to explain. She believes it destroys the
intent of balancing district with at -large seats. Dieterle stated that the major issue for her,
however, is the 'qualified elector' in the petitioning process for referendum and initiative. She
stated that she believes the 'qualified elector' distinction should be eliminated. She noted the
lengthy and involved process that one must go through in order to start a petition, giving
examples of what it is like trying to gain signatures for your petition.
Judy Pfohl, 2229 Abbey Lane, stated that she has done a couple of petitions in the past, ones
for Planning and Zoning though. In regards to the citizens electing the mayor, Pfohl stated that
she would be concerned about the increase of money for elections. She believes that this
would also become an issue with at -large and district voting, and that she sees no need for
changes in these areas.
Chris Piker, 236 Raven St., stated that he has a very specific proposal. He would like to see the
City move to four district councilors and three at -large. He noted that he lives on the east side
of Iowa City, and when issues of walkability, for example, are brought up, it is typically about
downtown. He sees the need for this in the outlying neighborhoods, especially for students
walking to and from the various schools in town. His proposal would be to have a new District
D, composed of the central precincts. He believes this would give the city better representation,
and cover a smaller region..
Mike Carberry, 2029 Friendship St., stated he has been a resident of Iowa City since 1976. He
added that he loves Iowa City and thinks it is one of the greatest in the Midwest. However, he
believes there should be more to a city than a triple-A bond rating. With Iowa City's fast and
continuous growth, he believes some changes need to be made. One change could be direct
election of the mayor by the people. Carberry believes the city needs a mayor that is powerful,
and that the city manager position actually has too much power. Another change would be to
the City Council. He believes they are greatly underpaid for what is expected of them and that
this pay should be increased. With this increase in pay, he believes they could get candidates
of a higher quality. Carberry also would like to see four districts and three at -large seats
represented on the Council. He believes that a 'strong' mayor and a 'strong' council would be
more responsive to the citizens of Iowa City. Regarding the 'qualified elector' issue in the
petition process, Carberry stated that he agrees with what others have said — that this process
is really very undemocratic and should be changed. He added that he would really like to see
Iowa City become more democratic.
Pam Michaud, 109 S. Johnson St., stated that she would echo what Mike Carberry and Caroline
Dieterle have said this evening about the district and at -large seats. Continuing, Michaud stated
PAGE 11
Charter Review Commission
September 23, 2014
Page 3
that she believes Iowa City's government is more 'by elite, for elite' than it should be. She then
gave an example of a time that she was circulating a petition regarding a TIF issue. The
developer in this situation evidently did not have the necessary downpayment for a project that
was being proposed. She shared her experience in getting her petition signed, often in 100-
degree weather, noting that she obtained more than the required signatures. However, her
issue was completely ignored by the Council. Michaud stated that the responsiveness was not
there, and she questioned how this could be written into something like the Charter.
Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson, noted that one of the first things said in the Charter is that
the Charter is here 'to help serve the community.' She believes this first sentence is very
important. In relation to this, she believes that perhaps it is time to do some redistricting, that
perhaps they need to look at how the current districts are set up. Carlson stated that she is
most concerned about the southern part of Iowa City, where there is currently a lot of
development. She wants every person in the city to feel that they are important, that their
concerns matter. Carlson touched upon Council compensation. She noted how little the
Councilors receive for their service, and how it limits the candidates who can run for Council.
Carlson noted that over the years she has noticed that Councilors have less and less time to
spend on the City's business and she believes this is not a good thing for the City. Carlson then
asked, "Where do we want to be 10 years from now? And what is the best way to get there?"
Jim Knapp spoke first to an article in the paper, adding that he doesn't think it is proper for the
City to give money to people to build huge buildings. Instead, he thinks these issues should go
to the community as a whole to be decided on. He also spoke about the water treatment plant
and their pipeline in the area. He believes the Council needs to be checked and balanced with
the community and that the community also needs to be involved in major decisions — not just
the Council. Knapp also stated that he does not think the Council should be comprised of
downtown business owners, as sometimes there are several on the Council at once. Knapp
also spoke to his dislike of the dealings between the City and developer Marc Moen. He stated
that he believes the Council has too much power, and that the City does not go out and do what
they need to do as far as enforcing regulations. He added that more of these dealings need to
be in the hands of the public, and not the Council. Knapp then spoke about the meetings taking
place behind closed doors and that there are open meeting laws in effect to deal with this. He
also spoke about the Peninsula development and the need for another access point.
Tom Carsner, 1627 College Court Place, stated that he has written to the Commission but
wanted to elaborate further in person. The first issue he addressed was the 'strong mayor' form
of government. He stated that the present Council/Manager form of government shows that the
weight of imbalance is on the side of the establishment, the status quo — the institution. This
'establishment' is hard to fight against, especially for those who are on the lower side of the
imbalance of power. Carsner stated that he does not want to see this form of government take
further steps to disempower those people on the lower side of the balance of power. This is
why he believes an elected mayor, a strong mayor, is vital for bringing more power to the
citizens. Carsner stated that he believes issues in the community need to be discussed more,
not less, and that this is what a strong mayor would allow the citizens of Iowa City to do. He
believes a strong mayor would have the backing of those citizens who voted for him or her, and
therefore be receptive to discussing those issues important to the citizens. The issue of
Council's time and input, versus City staff, and how the passivity and deference to the
institutional weight, or the status quo, was touched on by Carsner, as well. Speaking to the
eligible elector and registered voter issue, Carsner spoke to his experiences in speaking to
people about why they are not registered to vote. He stated that he believes that just because
PAGE 12
Charter Review Commission
September 23, 2014
Page 4
someone does not register to vote, they should not lose their ability to participate in government.
He added that he is a strong believer in returning to the eligible elector standard for signing
petitions.
Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., spoke to the qualified versus eligible elector issue first. She
stated that she believes they should get rid of the qualified elector requirement. She shared an
experience in getting signatures for a petition, stating that in order to get the 2,500 required
signatures, they had to collect around 4,500 signatures. She suggested the Commission speak
to the City Clerk to see what she does to verify signatures. She added that it's very non-
technical, all on paper. Hampel spoke to the weather issues, as well, noting how difficult it is to
out in the inclement weather, attempting to collect the right signatures. She stated that the
process is very long and difficult, and that the process should be easier so that the Council can
hear from the public. She asked again that the Commission consider recommending elimination
of the 'qualified elector' requirement for referendum and initiatives.
Regenia Bailey, 310 Reno St., the Commission for their work. She stated that she feels very
strongly about how the district representatives are elected. She shared that she herself was a
District C representative, and that she spent time explaining Iowa City's system. Bailey
continued, stating that she believes the current system works well for Iowa City, that the Council
comes together to work as a community. She has concerns about changes being made to this
system. Bailey then spoke to the directly elected mayor issue. She added that this has some
appeal, but she questioned if people would really get what they want. She believes the current
make-up of Council creates a team effort. Bailey stated that she believes the current system is
a great one — very community — and she encouraged the Commission to keep things the same.
Judy Pfohl, 2229 Abbey Lane, spoke to how her son was involved in the Wisconsin recalls and
some of the practices that took place, such as people saying 'sign this petition to keep a mall
from being built in your area,' when in fact what people signed had nothing to do with that. She
also spoke about how issues in California can get on the ballot too easily, and she gave some
examples.
Alexsey Gurtovay, an 18-year resident of Iowa City spoke to the issues that have been
discussed and how it is easy to take for granted what is already written in the Charter and to be
skeptical about making any changes. Gurtovay spoke to the petition issue, noting that changes
to the City Code are what require the correct electors to sign. He added that it is easier to get a
petition signed to change the Charter than it is the Code.
Kubby moved to accept correspondence from Judy Pfohl, Harry Olmstead, Carol
deProsse, Martha Norbeck, and Chris Piker. Sullivan seconded the motion. Motion
carried 9-0.
Chairperson Chappell noted the televised playback times for tonight's forum: Saturday at 5:00
A.M.; Sunday at 5:00 P.M.; Monday at 1:00 P.M.; Wednesday at midnight and 9:00 P.M.; and
Friday at 8:00 A.M. The playback will also be available on the City Channel 4 web site,
available Saturday.
ADJOURNMENT:
Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion
carried 9-0.
PAGE 13
Charter Review Commission
September 23, 2014
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAME
EXP.
O
00
0
N
0
N
A
N
to
r`
N
M
0
W
N
w�
4/1115
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1115
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
Schantz
E
Melvin
4/1115
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
of
X
X
X
Moyers
E
Stone
Adam
4/1115
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
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 14
Marian Karr
From: Piker <cpikeman@q.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:42 PM
To: City Charter
Subject: Propose switching Iowa City from 3 Districts to 4
Attachments: FourDistrictProposal.pdf
City Charter Review Committee
Re: Four District Proposal
Attachments: 1 PDF document
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 that 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.
x 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
236 Raven St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
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 that
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 m}, 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
PAGE 16
Marian Karr
From: Sonia Ettinger <spettinger@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:51 PM
To: City Charter
Subject: affordabble housing
Should the planning and zoning have full control over decisions? Chauncey Tower deliberations could use
some rethinking.
Can the City Manager have some say over the Postal offices- making space for this downtown?
Sonia Ettinger
U n Y 0 V, I A C
M I.1VI CCU II A I 1Vll
Date: September 23, 2014
To: Charter Review Commission
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Re: Future playback times for the Community Input Forum
Cable has advised me of the following times that the September 23 community input session
will be re -broadcast:
Saturday @ 5:OOAM
Sunday @ 5:OOPM
Monday @ 1:OOPM
Wednesday @ midnight and 9:OOPM
Friday @ 8:OOAM
Also the program will be on our website at: htti):Hcitychannel4.com/video/ (Available by
Saturday)
PAGE 18
v
0
m
lD
'^
p
R
fl.
fD
to
= m
v 3
o a
�.
N®
m
�n
°
O
Vi
U
®
N
r)
j
<
N
H
N
j
� z D DM. p
M c== c ,_«
D
m o n ID
p m '^
O
:, n
ri Q 9_ "
fr. N O
s c u�i (D N
E:�
3
K
<
o
3
E
<
o
n
O
N
v
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
x
C. Piker
PAGE 19
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 Kohl
2229 Abbey Lane
Iowa City, IA 51146
PAGE 20
Marian Karr
From: Harry03 <Harry03@aol.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 smartphone
-------- 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 Govermnent. 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
PAGE 21
Marian Karr
From: Carol deProsse <lonetreefox@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 government, 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.
PAGE 22
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 continents.
Carol deProsse
1401 Burry Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246-4513
319.337.0694
PAGE 23
Marian Karr
From: Martha Norbeck <martha norbeck@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September T 7, 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 allentiof to my frill -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`f' Ave.
Iowa City, IA
PAGE 24
Chris Piker
236 Raven Street
Iowa City, Iowa
epikeman@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
: ["�� 1 11 11
Marian Karr
From: The Devilchicken <devilchkn@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:23 PM
To: City Charter
Subject: Charter Commission meeting
To whom it may concern,
I unfortunately missed your meeting Tuesday evening and am writing to voice my opinion in hopes it will be
heard.
It is my understanding that the city charter contains the term "qualified voters" in order for a citizen to be
counted as a human being on a petition. I have also read the state law using the term "eligible voter" in the same
context.
To me an "eligible voter" is a citizen with a voice. A human being that can be a "qualified voter" up to 10
days before election time. A "qualified voter" is someone selected by a group of individuals.
I would prefer, and hope you understand that an "eligible voter" should have an equal say in what is and is not
put before the city council or on a ballot box. This is especially important in this particular community as we
such a large population of professionals and students that move from place to place and have not had the
opportunity to immediately register or change their address if they have already registered. I cringe to think that
petitioners are being dropped not because they cannot vote, but because they have not yet registered to vote in
the community they work and pay taxes in.
I wont bore you with a long drawn out speech concerning democracy, the constitution, freedom etc. I think
anyone of reason could see the current problem in the city charters wording.
Please replace "qualified voter" with "eligible voter".
Thanks you.
Paul Kelly
1220 Village rd
#10
Iowa City Ia 52240