Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-2014 Charter Review Commission• i. MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, October 14, 2014 7:30 AM Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PRESENTATION ON LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX & THE CITY BUDGET (Finance Director) 3. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED a. Minutes of the meeting on 09/30/14 4. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF a. League of Women Voters Forum 5. REVIEW CHARTER a. Term limits b. Compensation of council members c. Use of word "citizen" d. Preamble and Definitions e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:30 AM unless specified) October 28 November 25 December 9 December 23 [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] 8. ADJOURNMENT Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 — 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dikes CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 09/09/14 and 9123/14 — b. Correspondence — (1) Chris Piker; (2) Sonia Ettinger; (3) Paul Kelly (late handout) Karr noted that they received a late handout today, a letter from Paul Kelly. She added that they can amend the Consent Calendar to adopt this, if the Commission is okay with that. Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Kubby seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. City Clerk Memo — future playbacks for Community Input Forum — Karr noted that her memo reiterates what was stated at the end of the public forum, which are the playback days/times for the Commission's recent forum. b. Chappell reported on his visit with the Board for the League of Women Voters. He shared what the Commission had been doing thus far, and he asked them to think about what type of interaction they are looking for. The correspondence he received back shows that they want to have a forum on the Charter, both informative and to have a discussion on some of the bigger issues. Chappell said the League forum is being scheduled for November 1 gnh at 7:00 P.M., and the League would like some of the Commission Members to attend. Karr reminded Members that if five or more attend it would need to be posted as a meeting. Karr will add this to agenda items so the Commission can discuss it further at the next meeting. Shaw stated that he is going to be meeting with a Council Member regarding his work on this Commission, and he asked if this is okay. Chappell stated that this is no problem and that whatever information Shaw would like to share with the Commission is okay, as well. Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 2 REVIEW PUBLIC FORUM INPUT OF SEPTEMBER 23; Correspondence received and accepted: * Judy Pfohl * Harry Olmstead * Carol deProsse * Martha Norbeck * Chris Piker Chappell stated that there is a relatively light agenda this evening, as it is mainly to review the public forum input, including correspondence received thus far. He asked Members how they would like to start their review this evening, noting that there were some clear issues coming out of the forum. Chappell stated that he thought the forum went well, with about 24 in attendance. Kubby noted an interesting observation — three of the four people who said, 'It's working great; don't do anything,' were former elected officials. Kubby stated that one thing that was brought up, but that the Commission hadn't yet discussed, was to have four districts and three at -large. She stated that she understands the motivation behind this thinking, but that she is unsure if it would function very well. She questioned if those four districts could then become the majority players when issues arise. Vanderhoef stated that she would be concerned if the districts became more than the at -large, as those representatives could 'forget the big picture' and think only of their district. She added that you have to look at the overall picture of the city as a whole. Sullivan asked how often the district maps are redrawn. Karr responded that they are done after the new Census information is provided every 10 years. She briefly explained how state and federal mandates play into this, as well. Chappell asked if it occurs very often that a councilor will go from an at -large to a district, or vice versa, either by redrawing boundaries or individual choices. Karr noted that it does not happen very often, but that it has happened recently with Terry Dickens switching from At -large to district. Sullivan spoke to the last election, noting that the 'quasi -districts' can be confusing. There were six candidates running for three seats, but in two separate races. Vanderhoef asked Sullivan for some clarification. He stated that to him it is superfluous to have this other race, as one seat is at -large and the other is a district seat. Members agreed, after further discussion, that the theory of the current Charter is that everyone on the Council will represent everyone in the community. Chappell stated that he would question what is gained by adding another district, if the ultimate result would be achieved. Sullivan responded to Chappell's observation about districts, stating that he doesn't believe district size and ratio of representation is a concern. Craig agreed, stating that the city really is small enough that with three districts, mixed with the four at -large, the representation appears to be very fair to her. She sees no reason to change how this works. Discussion continued, with Members weighing in on the issue of fair representation throughout the community. Vanderhoef noted that in her experience the people who are satisfied with how things are going do not come to the meetings to say reiterate this. Instead it is the people who are wanting change that more frequently come and voice their objections or ideas. She added that this is a good thing as it gives the Council new ideas to consider. Kubby then asked how keeping or changing the Charter around districts help people feel more heard, even if their ideas are not agreed to. Vanderhoef stated that she herself is not interested in changing the number of districts at this point. She believes the system works as well as it can right now. Chappell Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 3 stated that if a change were to be made, he would never support having the majority be districts. He believes the majority of the Councilors must have the best interest of the entire city in mind. Shaw spoke to the issue of how citizens can feel more connected. He asked if a change to the process in elections, such as what Sullivan was talking about earlier, would make a difference. Getting rid of the primary elections, he suggested, might make things clearer for voters. Kubby stated that she believes people will feel more engaged and heard when they have their district person on the Council. She believes this could bring about greater participation. Members continued to discuss the issue — district versus at -large. Vanderhoef asked if there has ever been an at -large candidate from the west side of the river. She added that without a district, she wonders about the growth on the west side and whether this could become an entire district. Karr shared some history with the Commission, noting a couple of the previous Councilors who lived west of the river. Chappell noted that at the next public forum, this should be one of the issues they put forth for discussion. Another issue that has been heard several times is the selection of the mayor and whether this should be done through a direct election by the citizens. The issue of a 'stronger mayor' was heard at the public forum, as well. Chappell stated that he himself has no interest in the 'strong mayor' approach. He believes this would mean a change in the form of government they currently have. Sullivan stated that he believes there is a way to go this direction without having to make major changes. He believes the election of the mayor, however, is independent of the 'strong mayor' issue. Vanderhoef asked if there would be interest in something like what Coralville has — the mayor is non -voting, unless there is a tie. Craig stated that she believes the mayor is currently elected by the citizens. They voted the Councilor in, and then the entire Council — all directly elected — chooses the mayor. Shaw asked how many times a newly elected Councilor has been elected mayor by their peers. No one recalled any newly elected members serving as Mayor. He asked if the Councilors decide who would best lead them, or if it is the campaigning or theater for it that gets the selection made. Kubby responded that sometimes it is the least offensive person, not necessarily the person who will best lead the group or lead the city. Chappell asked if any of the group are interested in changing to the 'strong mayor' form of government. With no interest shown, he stated that the real issue for their discussion is the current system of the Council selecting the mayor versus direct election by the citizens. Members discussed these issues, with Dilkes suggesting the group take a look at cities that do have direct election of a 'non - strong mayor' and see how this form works. Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, and others were given as examples. The discussion continued, with Members noting their opinions on the mayor issue. Citing other cities and how their forms of government appear to be working, examples were given of how an elected mayor could benefit the city. Chappell agreed with Kubby that he would like to see more transparency regarding how the mayor is currently elected. He questioned if this would increase confidence in their current form of government or not. Shaw asked how long the actual process takes, if one of the Councilors states that they want to be mayor or just what happens. Kubby stated that typically immediately after the election the talking begins. Shaw asked if that process could be incorporated into a Council meeting or two, one where the public is in attendance. He added that an announcement could be made as to when the 'campaigning' process for mayor begins, when the process ends, and how it is going to take place, which he believes should be in a public forum. Sullivan suggested making nominations for mayor to be made at a previous meeting than the meeting where the vote takes place. This would give at Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 4 least two weeks for the public to respond. In response to questions, Dilkes stated that you could always make the first deadline very soon after the election. This way if someone has an interest in being mayor, they must declare by that specific day after the election. Karr responded to questions by stating that the swearing in of new Councilors occurs right after the election canvas is final; and typically new members are sworn in way ahead of taking office January 1. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Vanderhoef noting that one of Iowa City's previous mayors told her that he did not know he was going to be mayor until he was walking into Council chambers that day. This was because two others on the Council really wanted to be mayor, and this individual was chosen instead, even though he had not stated his interest. Shaw noted that broadly speaking, the process of how a mayor is elected in Iowa City is not transparent, and by having a declaration of some sort regarding this process, the public could be better informed. The discussion continued, with Members discussing what the mayoral position does in general and what influences they may have overall. Kubby noted that this position should have more responsibility than a regular Councilor. Chappell stated that for him, not every Councilor would make a good mayor. They may make a good Councilor, for example, but he doesn't believe everyone has what it takes to be the mayor. Dilkes stated that there is not much in the current Charter regarding the mayor's duties. It states that the mayor is a voting member of the Council, an official representative of the city, and presiding officer of the Council and its policy spokesperson. She added that currently the Council has to have at least three Councilors agree to an issue in order to put it on the work session agenda. Members agreed that this is a 'practice' issue of how the Council handles business, not a Charter issue. Kubby stated that not everyone can facilitate meetings well and keep a group, such as the Council, on task. Chappell stated that he has some concerns when it comes to directly elected mayors, and that they may end up with longer -serving mayors. He noted that in the last decade, mayors have tended to serve two to four years. He questioned if someone in this position wouldn't become more entrenched in the position. Atkins asked if there shouldn't be term limits of sorts, such as you can serve no more than four consecutive years. He added that reasonable duties and responsibilities would need to be spelled out and available to all of those interested in being mayor. Kubby stated that even if they kept the process the same, they could still do this. It would make Councilors consider whether they believe they are qualified to fulfill these duties. Karr stated that she wanted to follow up with an observation that Craig made, in regards to having all seven Councilors declaring their desire to be mayor. You could also end up with four of the seven expressing interest, and then a few weeks later end up with nobody interested in the position and withdrawing. Shaw stated that his take on this is with the exception of clearly distinguishing the duties of the mayor, the mayoral position is not given any further 'power' than currently exists in the Charter. The issue of transparency and the citizens understanding the process of how the mayor is selected is what is important. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to have more discussions about how many terms a mayor can have. She believes it feeds into some of what Kubby has said, that some people could be prone to stay on Council longer in order to push their own agenda. She believes no more than two consecutive terms would be appropriate, but that there needs to be others in the position in order to keep things fresh. Members briefly discussed a couple of mayors with extended terms. Dilkes noted that she pulled up the Cedar Rapids' Charter and that their mayor, who is directly elected, has significantly more responsibilities than the Iowa City Charter shows for its mayor, Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 5 including representing the city in inter -governmental relationships, appoint with the advice and consent of the Council members of citizen advisory boards, present an annual message, appoint the members and officers of Council committees, and serve as an ex off icio member thereof, assign Council agenda items subject to consent of Council, coordinate economic development activities of the city, and then perform various ceremonial tasks. Karr noted that the mayor's proclamations are the only thing that are directly from the mayor himself. Atkins noted that the current Charter states that a mayoral appointment will be made 'immediately,' so the framework is already established in regards to this issue. REVIEW CHARTER: Chappell stated that as far as moving forward with their review, they can either go back through the Charter and further discuss those issues that arose. Or they can go through the Charter, topic specific, and have further discussions on those. Sullivan stated that he would trust Chappell and Karr to come up with those items that have arisen through the Commission's review and to bring those back for further review. Shaw stated that the majority of their time should be spent discussing the bigger issues that have arisen, as this will take several meetings. He believes this will get them further along, versus a slow read through the entire Charter again. Kubby stated that today's conversation, for example, was fruitful as they focused on one or two major issues. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:30 AM unless specified): Karr suggested a review of the schedule for the remainder of the year. Vanderhoef noted that she may be unable to attend the October 14 meeting; she is still awaiting further word on a possible conflict. Craig stated that she is waiting to hear about the same event. Karr noted that November 11'h was dropped as it is Veterans Day (City holiday). Shaw noted that he wanted to speak to the starting times of the meetings. He wanted to know if they could start a bit later — 7:45 or 8:00. Chappell suggested they come to the October 14th meeting with calendars and have these conversations at that time. This way they will have a better idea of where they are and where they need to be. Karr noted that the sooner they know when the next forum will be, the better, as they need to reserve a room. Next meetings: October 14 October 28 November 25 December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 6 Charter Review Commission 11Tk - [- • 0 2014 TERM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Q Ot f7r r M M r4 V CO 00 W <O CO NAME EXP, O W N 0 N N M N 0 N W A A A A A A A A A A N A 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X 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 X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ Schantz E E Melvin 411/15 X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X X Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1115 X 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