HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-25-2014 Charter Review Commission1 1
ter wd
t rlll p�
^�Ic
city of
MeT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
7:45 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 11/10/14
b. Letter from Rita Bettis - ACLU Recommendations to Iowa City Charter
Review Commission
3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF
a. League of Women Voters Forum
4. REVIEW CHARTER
a. Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board
b. Use of word 'citizen"
c. Preamble and Definitions
d. Initiative and Referendum
e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows)
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
6. SCHEDULE NEXT PUBLIC FORUM
a. Date — tentative January 7
b. Location — Public Library
c. Time - TBD
d. Format — TBD
e. Televised - TBD
7. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE— [BRING 2015 CALENDARS]
(7:45 AM unless specified)
December 9
December 23
January 6
[Commission work completed no later than April 1, 20151
8. ADJOURNMENT
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 2014 — 7:45 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz
(via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee
Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Julie Voparil
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meetings on 10/28/14
b. Citizens Police Review Board
Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Atkins seconded the motion.
The motion carried 9-0.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
a. League of Women Voters Forum — Chappell reviewed previous discussions
and stated that they do need to make a decision on participation. He stated that
they have committed to doing the forum, and what the League would like to see
is three to four Members present at their upcoming public forum. Chappell stated
that he is happy to attend the forum, especially in light.of being Chair. He stated
that he would like to have two females and one additional male attend, so as to
achieve a gender balance. Vanderhoef suggested Shaw attend. He noted that
he is scheduled to be in Cedar Rapids at 6:00 that day. Members continued to
discuss the issue, with Schantz stating that he would be happy to attend. In
addition, Moyers -Stone and Craig agreed to attend the forum.
b. Compensatory History — Chappell noted that Karr provided the changes in the
ordinance dealing with council compensation.
C. Other — Chappell asked if there were any other reports from staff or Commission
Members. Kubby stated that she has some ideas about the word 'person' and
corporations and the association, but that she did not have the time to get her
report done prior to this meeting.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Compensation of council members — Chappell noted that their previous
discussions ended with them unsure if they wanted to do anything about this
piece, He noted that Moyers -Stone and Schantz were gone at the last meeting,
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 2
and that he would be interested in what they may have to say. He added that he
believes this may be something they want to talk about at their second public
forum, that it would be interesting to see what feedback they get. Moyers -Stone
stated that her feelings are pretty much the same, in that she believes the
compensation should be enough to compensate council for the amount of time
that they are spending on council duties, but not so much that this would become
a real job. She does not believe a number should be set in the Charter
necessarily. Schantz stated that he believes the compensation is too low, but
that there is something to be said for the Charter taking the burden off the council
itself of raising their own salary. Chappell suggested they indefinitely table this
item until they decide how they are going to structure their second public forum.
Atkins stated that he believes they should settle on something and not leave this
item hanging. Chappell stated that he is comfortable in hearing some input at the
public forum. Kubby stated that not only is it a compensation issue, but it is also
a Charter issue — whether compensation should be part of the Charter or not.
Dilkes noted that State law says that compensation must be set by ordinance. If
the Charter addresses compensation, the Council will probably adopt an
ordinance to reflect whatever the Charter says.
b. Use of word "citizen" — Chappell then moved on to discuss use of the word
'citizen.' He noted that everyone has the document where Karr highlighted all of
the different uses of the word. Chappell then asked who would like to replace the
word 'citizen' with 'resident' in the Charter. Sullivan stated that he would be open
to that change. Atkins stated that he would like to hear a bit more discussion on
this issue. Chappell then asked if any of the Members believe it would be a bad
idea to replace 'citizen' with 'resident.' Kubby stated that the one section she
believes it would not work is the Citizen Police Review Board section.
Vanderhoef stated that as they previously discussed, changing the Preamble
section which may eliminate the need for this change. Dilkes then asked if the
option of defining 'citizen' as a 'resident of Iowa City' was discussed at all. Kubby
stated that they did, but the reason behind the change is due to the connotation
of the word, not the definition of the word. She noted that they also discussed
defining 'resident,' and that they should not do this as it can lead to its own
issues. Moyers -Stone stated that for her, she would like to see one term used
and to have it defined. She noted that currently neither word is defined and that
they are used back and forth throughout the Charter.
Sullivan noted that both are used very sparsely, with 'citizen' appearing 10 times
in two different sections, and 'resident' only appears twice. Half of the uses of
'citizen' appear in the Preamble, which could be solved with a new Preamble.
Sullivan continued, noting that he likes what Kubby said about the connotation of
'citizen,' but that he also believes if they define 'citizen' as they see it in this case
that it would address the issue to some extent. Atkins added that 'resident' is
more of a location -sounding word, that you are physically there. 'Citizen,' on the
other hand, is something broader in definition. Atkins stated that he likes the
idea of writing their own definition for the use here. Members continued to
discuss this issue, with some believing 'resident' should be used and others
leaning towards 'citizen.' Shaw stated that more importantly, how often does the
issue of citizenship versus resident come up. He added that if they cannot agree
on the use, he asked if either use of the word 'citizen' or 'resident' has less
political connotations, than perhaps a broader interpretation should be used.
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 3
Members continued to discuss the issue, agreeing finally that use of 'resident,'
undefined, is their preference but that they would still use the word in reference
to the CPRB. Dilkes questioned this, which led to a brief discussion, with
Members speaking to the CPRB and whether it should be the Police Review
Board instead.
Chappell reiterated what is being proposed, which is changing the name to
'Residents Police Review Board,' or the 'Police Review Board.' Continuing,
Chappell moved through the sections that they are proposing changes to. He
stated that it appears they have consensus to change the word 'citizen' to
'resident' throughout the Charter document. He noted that he will contact
Melissa Jensen, the CPRB Chair, to let her know what the Commission is
considering, as well as the reasoning behind it. Chappell stated that from what
he has heard, the CPRB has recommended some changes. He continued,
noting that this is on page 10 of the meeting packet. The CPRB's proposal is to
'hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of the CPRB
hearing views on the polices, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City Police
Department.' Chappell noted that the first thing being recommended is to get rid
of the word 'citizen,' which the Commission have themselves addressed. The
second recommendation is to remove the phrase '...and to make
recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the City
Council.' Chappell stated that he is uncomfortable removing this phrase, and he
asked if others on the Commission are as well. Craig stated that she thought this
was the point of the CPRB — to make recommendations based on what they
hear. Chappell stated that he would raise this issue with the Chair, as well.
C. Preamble and Definitions — Moving on, the discussion turned to the Preamble
and Definitions sections of the Charter. Chappell asked Schantz if he would like
to discuss his recommendations, which are on page 18 of the meeting packet.
Schantz spoke first to the decision to add 'Home Rule' to the Charter, noting that
he believes the best place is in the first phrase — between 'full' and 'powers.' 'To
confer upon it the full Home Rule powers of a Charter city.' Continuing, Schantz
stated that he believes these words were left out as he put 'self determination' in
instead. He noted that this comes mainly from the model Home Rule Charter
document. Schantz stated that he believes the first two bullet points are
essential, and that the last two may be debatable. Chappell asked Schantz if he
could speak to why he believes this version is better than the current one.
Schantz responded that first off he likes the 'We the people' phrase as it is used
in many constitutions and emphasizes a'bottom-up' process, which he believes
the current wording does not do. He believes the language he is proposing
captures the importance of what the Charter is attempting to do. Secondly,
Schantz stated that some of the items in the Preamble are there so that in
political discussions or arguments about city government, there would be some
very broad principles that you could grab hold of and indicate that those come
right from the core of the Charter itself. Chappell then asked the Commission if
there is a general consensus to change the Preamble to something along the
lines of what Schantz is proposing. He added that they can then look at making
any changes to it that Members may want to make. Sullivan stated that he likes
Schantz's proposal and would agree to using it as a starting point for a
recommendation. Others agreed with Sullivan's statement, with Shaw stating
that he would be happy to work with Schantz on any revisions to the most recent
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 4
draft. Atkins and Moyers -Stone both agreed with Schantz's proposal. Chappell
suggested that they put the Preamble on the next agenda and that everyone
bring any revisions they would like to see made to it.
d. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) — Chappell then
suggested they briefly discuss the public forum set-up that he would like to see
for the second meeting. He asked Kubby to help explain the second public forum
that was held 10 years ago, during the previous Charter review. Kubby stated
that the purpose of the process was not to just have people say what they think
and have the Commission absorb it, but to really have conversations and the
exchange of ideas with the public. She explained that at this forum, people were
split up into small groups, and each Commission Member facilitated a small
group. Each Member led their group with a specific topic, asking people what
their opinions were and asking how they felt about a possible change to
something in the Charter. Continuing, Kubby stated that they each had around
three topics and typically spent about 20 minutes on each topic. Chappell noted
that the group would identify beforehand what the top three or four topics are that
they want to get feedback on. He added that typically an hour to an hour and a
half timeframe is the most they should have.
Chappell then asked Members how they feel about this type of format for the
second forum. Sullivan stated that to him this is a completely new idea, and that
his first concern is that not everyone who comes is heard by the entire
Commission. Chappell stated that this is a good point and they would need
someone to take detailed notes. Sullivan added that if someone takes the time
to come to the forum, he would like to hear what they have to say, rather than
read someone's notes. His other concern is that it seems very formulated, in that
people end up feeling that their viewpoint was lost in the shuffle of others'
viewpoints. He feels that a forum like this kind of molds peoples' viewpoints
together. Kubby noted that it is different — that they are asking people to think
about where they are at and to put themselves in a different frame, to look at
both pros and cons — not just one viewpoint. Craig noted that there are all kinds
of avenues for people to share their opinions — emails, Commission meetings,
forums — and she thinks this type of forum adds to those available avenues, so
people can share their thoughts and opinions.
Shaw spoke to this type of forum, asking if they are there to 'referee' each small
group. He noted that at the first forum people could say what they want, but that
the second is stricter in what people share. Kubby noted that it is a different way
to get feedback, and that the job of the facilitators is to really keep the
conversation on topic. Chappell stated that they are definitely not referees at this
forum, that it is facilitating the group and keeping people on topic. Kubby stated
that she could send to Karr what the previous Commission used at their second
forum. They had a 'cheat sheet' of sorts that formatted the topics and gave them
ideas on how to run the group.
Chappell asked Sullivan if he has ideas for other ways to conduct such a forum.
Sullivan responded that he thought it would be similar to the first forum, where
people speak from the podium. He added that once they know what the changes
are going to be to the Charter, they should have another'open mic' style meeting
to gather input. Others agreed that once they have their final draft it would make
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 5
sense to ask for public input again. Moyers -Stone stated that the small group
approach appeals to her, versus the open mic, in that the public can see exactly
what the Members are doing and what the process has been. Chappell stated
that they need to now figure out the best date for this second forum. He stated
that over the next three meetings, they need to discuss 'Initiative and
Referendum.' Other issues where they have not had consensus yet include the
direct election of the mayor, and whether to change to 'pure' or keep the
bifurcated district system. Continuing, Chappell suggested they look at a
January date for the forum. Some discussion ensued regarding the Council's
schedule at that time and room availability. Chappell suggested January 7 as the
forum date and asked Members their thoughts. Vanderhoef asked if they should
have a special meeting themselves, prior to the forum. Others agreed that the
day before, January 6, would work. Chappell then reiterated his request that
Karr check for a forum space and time for Wednesday, January 7, at 7:00 P.M.
(or earlier if necessary), and also a special meeting of the Charter Review
Commission on Tuesday morning, January 6.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
November 25 — Chappell noted that they should have the report on the League of
Women Voters regarding their forum. He asked that Members bring their calendars to
this meeting so they can get their meetings set for 2015. Craig asked if they should plan
on specific topics to discuss at the next meeting, and Chappell stated that they would
definitely talk about Initiative and Referendum, as well as the Preamble. Before
adjourning, Atkins asked for some clarification of the second forum's format. Chappell
and Kubby responded, with Kubby noting that she will find the suggested format outline
and facilitator notes so that everyone understands how they conducted this previously.
Dilkes noted that Karr can probably access this fairly easily from the previous
Commission's minutes and notes. Dilkes suggested the group keep track of the pros
and cons when they themselves discuss some of these bigger issues, as it may help
them conduct the upcoming forum.
December 9
December 23
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried
9-0.
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
o
O
>
>
>
>
A
ut
w
O
O
V
00
CO
W
f®
W
O
O
>
>
O
00
>
w
N
�
>
o
N
A
N
N
>
N
N
a>
O
co
N
w
w
o
-*
A
IN)
oD
a
IN)EXP.
N
>
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
N
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
>
A
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
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
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
411/15
O
X
X
X
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/
X
O/
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
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
X
O/
X
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
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
X
O/
X
X
Vanderhoef
E
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
6s
Marian Karr
From: Rita Bettis <rita.bettis@aclu-ia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:00 PM
To: City Charter; Council; Eleanor M. Dilkes
Cc: Robert Givens
Subject: Recommendations for City Charter Review Commission
Attachments: ACLU Recommendations to Iowa City Charter Review Comm'n.pdf
Dear Council Members and Charter Review Commission,
Attached, please find recommendations on behalf of the ACLU of Iowa, including the Iowa City Hawkeye
Chapter of the ACLU of Iowa, pertaining to the provisions of the Iowa City Charter that govern initiative and
referendum petitions. Hawkeye Chapter President Robert Givens is ec'ed.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or to discuss our recommendations further.
Sincerely,
Rita Bettis
Legal Director
ACLU of Iowa
505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901
Des Moines, IA 50309-2316
(515)-243-3988 ext. 15
This email was sent by an attorney or her agent, is intended only for the addressee's use, and may contain
confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
retention, dissemination, reproduction or use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email. Thank
you for your cooperation.
505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901
Des Moines, IA 50309-2316
www.aclu-ia.org
City Council Members and Charter Review Commission
c/o Marian Karr, City Clerk
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
November 19, 2014
Delivered by eniail to: cit)0iarterOiowa-ci ).otg council a,iowa-city.or- andEleanor-
dilkes@ioit,a.citi7.org
Re: Recommendations to Bring Iowa City Charter Provisions Regarding Petition
Validity in Line with Statutory and Constitutional Requirements
Dear Council Members and Charter Review Commission,
This letter is written on behalf of the ACLU of Iowa, including the Hawkeye
Chapter of the ACLU of Iowa in Iowa City. As the city goes through its charter review
process, the ACLU of Iowa strongly urges you to amend several provisions of the City
Charter of Iowa City ("Charter"). We are specifically concerned with the process for
initiative and referendum laid out in the Charter, as well as the prohibition on amending
the charter through that process.
Those provisions unnecessarily exclude Iowa City residents who are eligible to
vote but who are not already registered from fully participating in the democratic process
in Iowa City. These provisions are in direct conflict with state law in numerous ways, and
the state has legislated in this area so thoroughly as to demonstrate an intention to
preempt local provisions.
These provisions separate voters into classes and burden the right to petition the
government in ways that are arbitrary, unreasonable, and likely unconstitutional. It is
unclear what valid government purpose is served by classifying voters as "eligible" and
"qualified," and only allowing signatures from "qualified" voters to count toward petition
requirements.
Thus, not only is the Charter subject to challenge on grounds that it is statutorily
preempted, but the differentiation in the Charter between "eligible" and "qualified" voters
may violate some Iowa City residents' constitutional rights.
I. Section 7.03 of the City Charter of Iowa City is preempted by Iowa Code
§ 362.4 (2014).
Express preemption of a city ordinance occurs when the general assembly has
prohibited local action in an area. Goodell v. Humboldt Cnty., 575 N.W.2d 486, 492
(Iowa 1998). Implied preemption of a city ordinance by Iowa law occurs when an
ordinance prohibits an act permitted by statute, or permits an act prohibited by statute. Id.
at 493. Field preemption occurs when the legislature has "cover[ed] a subject by statutes
in such a manner as to demonstrate a legislative intention that the field is preempted by
state law." City of Council Bluffs v. Cain, 342 N.W.2d 810, 812 (Iowa 1983). A city's
home rule powers under Iowa law do not extend to those ordinances which are
"inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly." Iowa Code § 364.1 (2014). A local
ordinance is inconsistent with a state law when it is irreconcilable with it. Goodell, 575
N.W.2d at 500; see also BeeRightTire Disposal/Recycling, Inc. v. City of Rhodes, 646
N.W.2d 857 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002).
Because the Iowa City Charter is irreconcilable with Iowa law setting forth
petition requirements that a municipality may impose, it is preempted by state law and
must be revised.
Iowa Code § 362.4, "Petition of eligible electors," sets forth the requirements of a
petition of the voters if such a petition is authorized by municipality: "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 innumber to ten percent of the persons who voted at file last preceding
regular city election, but not less than ten persons, unless otherwise provided by state
law."
In Berent v. City of Iowa City, 738 N.W.2d 193, 197 (Iowa 2007), the Iowa
Supreme Court interpreted § 362.4 as establishing the validity of petitions that are
"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...." Id. (emphasis added.) It held that
"[t]here are no other statutory requirements for validity ... Our legislature, moreover, has
directed that if a petition meets these two statutory requirements, it is `valid' under
section 362.4 and the city council `must' submit the proposed amendment to the voters."
Id. at 200. Because the Berent case, which dealt with amendments to the Iowa City
Charter, interpreted the code section that is equally applicable to all petitions, it is highly
likely the Court would apply it the same way to initiative and referendum petitions.
The City Charter violates the requirement established by Iowa Code § 362.4. The
text of § 7.03, subsection "A" of the City Charter of Iowa City, "Petitions; Revocation Of
Signatures," states that "[i]nitiative and referendum petitions must be signed by qualified
electors equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the number ofpersons who
voted in the last regular city election, but such signatures shall be no fewer than two
thousandfive hundred qualified electors." A "qualified elector," in tun, is defined by
the Charter as "a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote in Iowa City." This is
notably a much smaller class of voters than all "eligible electors," which the charter
defines as those who are "eligible to register to vote in Iowa City."
Thus, this section of the City Charter of Iowa City is preempted by state law because
it is in direct conflict with Iowa Code §362.4 (2014) in at least three ways:
(1) It requires that petition signatures be from "qualified electors," thus excluding
the signatures from many eligible electors, who are to be allowed petition rights
under state law;
(2) It requires petitions to contain signatures equal to 25 percent of the number of
persons who voted in the last regular city election, thus prohibiting petitions
signed by merely ten percent of the number of persons, the number specified
under state law; and
(3) It requires a minimum of 2,500 signatures for a valid petition, thus prohibiting
petitions signed by the minimum 10 people allowed under state law when that
number exceeds ten percent of the number of voters in the preceding city election.
II. Proposed Revised Charter Text
Below, please find suggested text to cure the current deficiencies in the Charter.
DEFINITIONS
As used in this charter:
1. "City" means the city of Iowa City, Iowa.
2. "City council' or "council" means the governing body of the city.
3. "Councilmember" means a member of the council, including the
mayor.
4. "Shall' imposes a duty.
5. "Must" states a requirement.
6. "May" confers a power.
7. "Eligible elector" means a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa
City.
o tl l..,.1: a_.] _i_.. —." ____.. �,... _.,...: A....♦ ,_f r,___.., na. __.L,_ :.. ..�._:..�,...,.A
9, 8. 'Board" includes a board, commission, committee or other
similar entity however designated.
40-. 9. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation,
company, association, political party, committee or any other legal
entity.
44-. 10. "Ordinance" means a city law of a general and permanent
nature.
4-2-. 11. "Measure", except as provided in article VII, means an
ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976;
anrd. Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985; Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures.
A. Number Of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be
signed by qualified eligible electors equal in number to at least twenty
-
five ten percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular
city election, but such signatures shall be no fewer than two thousand
five hundred ten qualified eligible electors. Any petition that does
not, on its face, contain the minimum required signatures defined
herein shall be deemed insufficient for filing under this article, and no
supplementary petition shall be permitted.
III. Conclusion
Given the statutorily preempted and likely unconstitutional nature of the current
language governing eligible and qualified electors in the Charter, the ACLU of Iowa
strongly urges you to amend these provisions as provided above.
We would be happy to provide additional information and answer any questions
you may have regarding this letter or the text we suggest be adopted in the Charter. You
may call or email me directly at the contact information provided below my signature.
Sincerely,
/s/ Rita Bettis
Rita Bettis
Legal Director
ACLU of Iowa
505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901
Des Moines, IA 50309-2316
(515)-243-3988 ext. 15
4
To: Charter Review Commission
From: Karen Kubby
Date: 11-16-2014
Re: Definition of person and preamble
I am proposing that we change the definition of "person" and add a definition of "other entity" so that
we can separate person from non -persons, yet recognize their rights and limitations under the city
charter. Below is my proposal for these definitions and the areas in the charter in which I saw the need
to make changes based on these new defninitien definitions.
DEFINITIONS
10. "Person" means an individual.
12. "Other Entity' means a firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, political party,
committee or any other legal entity.
13. "Measure" (same definition, just a new number).
Article 1. POWERS OF THE CITY
Section 1.03. Savings Clause
"... person, other entity or circumstance..."
Article VI. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Section 6.01. Limitations On The Amount of Campaign Contributions.
"... by a person or other entity as defined in this charter."
Section 6.02. Disclosure of Contributions And Expenditures.
"... and all other persons and other entities,"
Article VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 7.01 General Provisions
E. City Obligations
"... its agencies, any person, or other entities in reliance on the measure... "
We were asked to look at Mark Schantz's proposed preamble and below are my suggestions:
WE, THE PEOPLE of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the Constitution and statues of the State of Iowa and
the principle of self-determination, do hereby adopt this Charter and confer upon it the full home rule
powers of a charter city. By this action we Intend Ott faster adopt the following principles:
--resident participation on an inclusive basis in democratic self-government;
--the provision of services relating to the health, safety, and welfare of its residents in a fair, equitable
and efficient manner;
--the conduct of city business in conformity with due process, equal protection under the laws, and
those individual liberties protected by the Constitutions of the United States -and the State of Iowa, and
local ordinances;
--civility by city en+plyeesemployees in their interactions with the public.
6
A COMMUNITY PROCESS PROPOSAL
FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
Submitted by Karen Kubby
Summary of propo§& A small group public process where people are asked to respond
to a potential change in the charter and look for the advantages and unintended
consequences if the change were implemented.
Purpose of this proposal: As a committee we are charged with reviewing and, if
appropriate, offering changes to the charter to the council and our community. For some,
this document is important, but rather dry and uninteresting. I want our community to
find this process of utmost importance and to have the commission create some energy
and "buzz" about the process of review and interest in the results. It seems that creating a
format for community discussion that has some educational goals, allows for more
intimate discussion, and tries to live out some of the values of the charter would be
fruitful and be a step towards facilitating a more dynamic community dialogue about our
city charter. Utilizing a process that allows for more ownership over the process and is
very grassroots may generate some energy and interest in our process and results of this
discuss can guide us in our final decision -making process.
The proposal:
Take the 4 largest potential recommendations for city charter change through this public
discourse process. There will be time for each participant to be part of a small group
discussion around two of the four topics.
Introduce the 4 topics:
*current charter
*commission's potential change
`rationale for change (transparency, closer democracy, ease of understanding, etc.)
*explanation of how this change may effect other parts of the current charter or other
potential changes.
Participants divide into 4discussion groups based on topic. There are commission
members at each table who act as facilitators. We supply someone to take good notes
(this might have to be an official city someone for open records purposes). There are red
lined copies of that section of the charter at the table, as well as one copy of the full
current charter text (or red -lined version so all potential changes that might be part of the
discussion can be outlined. Each facilitator is supplied with the following format for
discussion:
1. Do you understand the change suggested? Allow for clarifying questions and respond
so that everyone has the same information and understanding about what is being
proposed.
2. How do you feel about this change?
3. No matter how you feel about the change, what might be some benefits to this change
for the community?
4. No matter how you feel about the change, what might be some negative consequences
of this change for the community?
The notes are then gathered and used as another tool for the commission to use during our
subsequent discussions and decision -making process.
Suggested Timeframe for December 1, 2004 Public Discussion
5:30pm Welcome and introductions by William Sueppel, Sr., Chair
Explain format of meeting
Count off by 4's
5:45pm Break into first set of small groups —Mayor election process discussion
6:1 Opm End first small group discussion
6:15pm Begin second small group discussion —District discussion: number/how elected
6:40pm End small group discussion
6:50pm Small groups report back to large group
If many groups, maybe the top three issues of each topic are reported
If few groups, could report more
7:05pm Large group discussion about any issue participants bring up
8:00pm Closing remarks by the Chair
Facilitator Tips
1. Check in to see if everyone understands the format of the next 25 minutes.
2. Remind the group what topic this group is discussing, reminding them they will have a chance to
talk about the other topic in small group, as well as anything else they have in mind during the
large group time.
3. Ask if anyone needs any clarification about how the current charter works in this area and what
the suggestion for change was. Answer concisely to clarify. This allows everyone to have the
same information and understanding about what is being proposed.
4. Some suggested questions:
a. How do you feel about this potential change?
b. No matter how you feel about the change, what might be some benefits to this change for
the community?
c. No matter how you feel about the change, what might be some negative consequences of
this change for the community?
5. Keep the group focused on the task at hand within the above timeframe.
6. If someone wants to bring up another topic during small group discussion, ask them to write
down their topic and that around 7pm, the floor will be opened up for other areas within the
charter.
7. If someone dominates the conversation, ask the group if anyone else has anything to contribute
or add to the conversation. If not, that person is allowed to go on.
8. If not everyone is contributing, ask if anyone who hasn't spoken would like to add something.
Look around the group equally for response, so as not to "pick" on anyone in particular.
9. Near the end of the time, you can do a "round robin" to see if anyone wants to add anything
before the discussion ends. This allows one last chance for people to contribute.
Some Pros and Cons of Major Charter Review Topics
At December 1, 2004 Public Discussion
Mayor Election Process
Elected by City Council
Pro
1. Is working well now.
2. Good working relationship with council.
3. No seat left open if council member
moves over to Mayor's seat, resulting
in a special election.
Con
1. Leadership could be stronger.
2. Process is not public —mostly behind the scenes.
3. Original charter commission could have gone
either way with the Mayor selection process.
4. Person who can get 4 votes is not always the best
leader.
Elected by Voter
Pro
1. Mayor is community leader and should be
elected by the community.
2. More public process.
3. Is a representative gov't—direct election is
is more representative.
4. Would allow use of other voting systems and
eliminate cost of a primary for candidate and
public.
Pro
Con
1. Could result in an inexperienced Mayor.
2. If a council member moves over to the Mayor's
seat, it would trigger an appointment or special
election.
3. More expensive election process.
District Seats
4 vs 3 Districts
Con
1. City has grown —need more distribution of where in 1. Current system works well.
the city council members lives. 2. Would have to redraw districts.
2. Smaller districts allow for more grassroots campaign
strategies during the primary.
3. Consistent with other charter communities.
True Districts
Pro
1. Relieve voter confusion.
2. Smaller districts allow for more grassroots campaign
strategies for the primary and general election. This
could result in a wider variety of candidates.
3. Would allow use of other voting systems and eliminate
expense of a primary for both candidate and public.
4. Consistent with most communities in the US.
Con
1. Current system works well.
2. District reps might work hardest on
Issues effecting their district and not
have the interests of the entire city in
mind when making policy.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
Date: November 20, 2014
To: Charter Review Commission
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Re: Information on 2004 Forum
Attached are the following documents regarding the 2004 Charter Community Discussion:
Copy of Press Release sent November 18
Copy of posters used in City transit and University Cambus
Copy of November 22 minutes
Copy of December 1 agenda
Copy of December 1 minutes
Please let me know if you have further questions.
Page 1 of
ICGov.Org Email Release
Marian Karr
From: web@icgov.org
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:02 PM
To: marian-karr@Iowa-clly.org
Subject: ICGov.org Media Release : General City News
UC
our to
4a !►ty Hall
Title: COMMENTS SOUGHT ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS OT IOWA CITY'S CHARTER
Release Date : Thursday, November 18, 2004
Release Time: 2:58:00 PM
Originating Department : City Clerk
Contact Person : Marian K. Karr
Contact Number: 356-5041
The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to
review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Charter, any amendments
recommended by the Commission must either be adopted by the City Council or
placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters, A community discussion on
potential Charter amendments will be held December 1, 2004, 5:30 p.m., in Room A
of the Iowa City Public Library (123 S. Linn St,),
The Issues to be discussed by the community on December 1 Include:
(1) Election of Mayor - The Mayor Is currently selected for a two-year term by a
majority vote of the City Council members, The Mayor Is the figurative head and a
voting member of the City Council and has the responsibility to lead Council
meetings. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain the same, should
the Mayor Instead be selected for a four-year term by a majority vote of the citizens?
This would require one of the at -large council positions to be designated as the
Mayor's slot and other possible administrative changes to the Charter.
(2) District Representation - Currently 3 of 7 Council Members are nominated within
their district and a primary Is held In the district If needed. The November city
election has district Council Members elected by voters citywide. Should the number
of districts be Increased? Should the district Council Members be "pure" i.e. general
election held In the districts only?
The Charter Review Commission Invites everyone to be a part of this public
discussion. Additional Information can be found on the City website citycharter@Iowa -
clty,org
To subscribe and unsubscribe from ICGov emall releases click here:
http://www.lcgov,Qmtsubscribe,asp
Click here to go to the City Jobs page
11/18/2004
f{
COMMUNITY DISCUSSION:
1 r 1
5:30 PM
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
ROOM A (Accessible to people with special needs.)
QUESTIONS:
citycharter@iowa-city.org
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIE NY COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2004 — 8:00 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
.0 .
bK6,8
DRAn r
l
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerplione), Nate Green, Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing, and William Sueppel, Chair
Members Absent: Lynn Rowat
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the mecting to order at 8:05 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004
MOTION: Nubby moved to accept the minutes of November 16, 2004, as
submitted; seconded by Davidsen, Motion carried 8-0 (Rowat absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
DECEMBER 1 COMMUNITY PROCESS SESSION
Sueppel asked for updates on the publicity for the upcoming session. Karr reported that
there were 42 posters put on City buses; 36 posters on Cannbus vehicles; and 250
handouts left with the information desks at both City Hall and the Public Library, the
Senior Center, and with Parks and Recreation. Karr then noted that handout CR62 is the
press release that was sent to all media, and posted on the website as well. Karr then
discussed the guest editorial, and stated that the Press -Citizen was unable to run
Sueppel's guest editorial on Sunday, but after emailing members the consensus was that
the editorial would be in the Saturday edition. Green is working on the submission for
the Daily Iowa, and Novick's letter submitted to the Gazette was distributed to members.
The City website, Karr noted, has all of this information on it, and referred to handout
CR64 for the latest. As for cable TV, Karr noted that they will ran little "fillers" before
the December 1 public session, but that they also have a new "toy," where someone could
tape a short interview, and then the cable staff will put this on an interactive database.
This could be done before the December I hearing, or even done after the hearing. A
brief discussion ensued about how this interactive program works. Davidsen suggested
that this would be better served if done after the hearing, to help keep the Charter
foremost in citizen's minds, The members agreed to put the interactive program into use
after the December 1 session. Kubby reported that she and Lensing were interviewed by
WSUI, and there are to be two pieces — a weekend piece on Saturday; and then a 5-
minute piece would also be done periodically. Werner reported that Ire left KXIC a
voieeuail but that he has not received a response. He will attempt to contact hinn again.
Charter Review Commission
November 22, 2004
Page 2
i
Next, the facilitator information slieet that Kubby prepared, handout CR65, was
reviewed. Davidson asked how topics, aside from what is listed here, would be
addressed, as there are bound to be people at the hearing who want to ask these things.
Sueppel stated that the large group is where the miscellaneous items will be addressed.
Novick stated that she questions the members discussing "other voting systems" She
feels they should take out any references to other voting systems, Sueppel stated that
perhaps adding "possibility of discussing...." may help, but that lie agrees with Novick in
that they should remove this. He then noted that since this sheet is for the members use
only, they could just make a notation to this effect. i
Karr quickly reviewed the set-up for the December I01 hearing, noting that they will have
meeting room A, as well as two adjoining rooms if needed for smaller groups; four flip
charts; the handouts (red -line version of Charter); and name tags were suggested. It was
further suggested that the nanretags be pre -numbered for ease in breaking into small
groups, Novick stated that she went through the latest redlined version of the Charter,
and added some commas and semi -colons to aid in the Charter reading "more smoothly,"
and she asked for the members' comments on this. She would like to give this to Dilkes
for review. Sueppel stated that Novick should give this to Dilkes, but asked that Dilkes
hold on to this until they are ready to incorporate more changes, and do this all at once.
The members agreed. Kubby suggested they have a sign -in sheet, and also suggested
they use this to contact interested citizens about the January hearing. Novick asked if the
high schools in the area were invited to the December 1 session. The members agreed to
have Karr send the letter, regarding the session, to all three high schools,
MEETING SCHEDULE
There were no changes to the schedule at this time. Novick asked if the members wanted
to change the December 8 meeting to 8:00 AM (instead of 7:00), but members felt that
with this being the first meeting after the December I" public session, they may need the
time to review how the session went.
REVIEW CHARTER
Nothing at this time.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Chappell moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Novick. Meeting
adjourned at 8:40 AM.
12�Ob04
LCR67
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DISCUSSION AGENDA
Wednesday, December 1.2004
5:30 PM
Room A, Iowa City Public Library
123 S. Linn Street
1. Opening Remarks by Chair
2. Introductions of Charter Members
3. Break out Into small groups
4. Reports of small groups
5. Large discussion of Charter
6. Upcoming Meeting Schedule
December 8 (7:00-9:30 AM; Harvat Hall)
December 13 (7:00-9:30 AM; Harvat Hall)
January 20 . (7:00 PM; Harvat Hall; televised)
7. Adjournment
CR71
MINUTE'S DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION - COMMUNITY DISCUSSION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2004 - 5:30PM
ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Nate Green, Naomi
Novick, Vicki Lensing, Lynn Rowat, and William Sueppel, Chair
Members Absent: Penny Davidsen
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR:
Chair Sueppel welcomed everyone to this evening's Community Discussion. He briefly
explained that they would be breaking into smaller groups, with a facilitator and a scribe
(both being Commission members) leading each group. He stated that each facilitator
will open the discussion with dialog concerning the respective issues that the
Commission has noted, but he further stated that this is everyone's meeting, and he
welcomed public comment. The Charter Review Commission at a glance:
■ have been meeting since May 2004;
■ liave lield 19 meetings, with approximately SO hours of discussion;
■ have reviewed the Charter in full three times.
INTRODUCTION OF CHARTER MEMBERS:
Sueppel then introduced the members of the Commission: Andy Chappell, Johnson
County Assistant Attorney; Penny Davidsen, not present this evening, but keeps in touch
through telephone conference; Naonii Novick, former Mayor of Iowa City and long -tine
activist; Nate Green, fist year law student at U of 1, former President of the Student
Government; Vicki Lensing, State Representative with interest in community affairs;
Lynn Rowat, President of West Bank; Karen Kubby, long -thee City Council Member and
active in municipal affairs; Kevin Werner, Iowa State Bank; and Bill Sueppel, Chair of
the Charter Review Commission.
BREAK OUT INTO SMALL GROUPS:
Sueppel noted that everyone's nametag has a number on it. After a bead count of
approximately thirty attendees, Sueppel had everyone break into four smaller groups by
number. Issues to be covered by facilitators:
M election of mayor at -large by the voters, versus by the Council members;
■ change the make-up of the Council; i.e.: (4) district seats and (3) at -large;
■ should voters within each district select their candidates at the primary election,
and also their representative, at the City election,
(TAPE OFF)
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 2
REPORTS OF SMALL GROUPS
Novick started the discussion, stating that she and Chappell had an excellent discussion
group, Their group discussed the election of the mayor issue. The main points noted
were:
• responsibilities, i.e.: does the mayor vote or not;
• mayor should be someone with Council experience;
■ whether or not the role of the mayor should be "passed around among Council
members";
■ should the mayor have term limits;
• if elected for a 2-year tern, should the mayor be allowed a second 2-year term;
• group agreed that two 2-year terms should be the limit for a mayor as a Council
member.
Chappell added that the consensus among their group was that the mayoral position
should remain selected by the seven City Council members, as it currently stands. He
noted that there were concerns about having this position be a directly elected one,
namely with concerns over the power this position would have.
Werner next discussed the group that lie and Green led (Attachment # 1). He stated that
one of their group participants, in regards to the mayor being directly elected, asked why
they would change this process if the duties or powers of the mayor will not change.
Sonic main issues in this group:
• more democratic to have a directly -elected mayor;
• citizens at -large would have their say as to who the mayor should be;
■ name recognition — does that make for a "strong" mayor;
• experience needed;
■ leadership;
• expectations when elected by citizens at -large, with no change in duties;
• directly -electing mayor is more connection with citizens;
■ representation;
■ money spent on elections — running for mayor vs. a council seat.
Next, Rowat and Lensing (Attachment # 2) reported on their group's discussion. Lensing
noted that their main issues were:
• role of the mayor — ceremonial vs, strong mayor;
• consensus was: If duties of mayor remain the same, then so should the system;
■ options the group discussed: do nothing; entertain the idea of term limits; or look
at changing the role and responsibilities of (lie mayor, which world then open the
possibility of also changing the way the mayor is elected;
The final group to report was Kubby and Sueppel. Sueppel stated that they also had a
good discussion, and that their points were:
■ wiry have an election at -large if powers do not change;
• strong mayor form of government discussed at length;
• city manager role with a strong mayor;
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 3
cooperative city council vs. a political contentious council;
"with a weak mayor, a general election makes no sense"; "voter turnout woula
increase if we had an election of a mayor"; "it works, why change it'; "we
wouldn't have had an Eric Shaw issue if we had elected a mayor at -large, rather
than someone who would have given a different turn oil the issue than the city did
at the time';
qualifications and experience.
The second issue, of districts, was discussed next. Novick started this discussion with
their group's main points:
• nominations from districts vs. at -large;
• when elected at -large, does a representative feel they are representing their
district;
■ is a district representative more aware of district issues, and more apt to bring
them to the council;
• neighborhood associations — role in community;
• (4) districts vs. (3) — not a majority consensus to change;
district representatives be elected by district voters only.
Werner noted that their group's points on this were:
• to be able to care about your district, as well as the entire community;
■ when candidates run in their districts, they ram for a third of the town, but then
have to nun in the entire community in the general election, and the ensuing
contusion this causes;
• getting more information to the voters on who they are voting for;
■ size of districts — redistrict after the census;
■ shape of districts -- how does this effect the community;
• qualified and good leadership in council — help or hurt with change in districts.
Green added that there was a consensus in their groups that the four districts, versus three
districts, did not matter either way.
Lensing noted that their group also spent a lot of time talking about the confusion of the
current system, as well as:
■ desire for effective leadership,
• how the city has changed in the last 30 years — population growth and change;
■ consensus of group: more districts are needed, with a (4) district and (3) at -large
seats;
■ discussed making the council larger, but after discussion, seven is a better
number;
■ being elected by districts vs. at -large;
• disenfranchising voters by not allowing them to vote for everyone.
Sueppel noted that their group consensus appears to be the opposite. 'Their issues were:
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 4
■ consensus of group was to stay with (3) districts and (4) at -large, but they want
the district people to be elected by the voters within each district;
■ confusion of not knowing district representatives;
a cheaper to ran for district vs. all at -large;
® discussed having as many districts as possible, but not more than (7); however, as
the discussion continued, people were more concerned about electing the people
from within their district vs, the number elected.
Sueppel then asked if anyone on the Commission had any issues they wished to raise. He
then asked the Commission members to write up the notes they took during their group
discussions, and to bring them to the next Commission meeting.
LARGE DISCUSSION OF CHARTER
Sueppel opened up the floor to the public, asking that anyone who wishes to address the
Commission needs to come froward to the microphone.
Don Anciaux, 2119 Russell Drive, thanked the Commission for their work on the Charter
Review. He feels the Council representation would be better served being at -large 1, at -
large 2, at -large 3, and at -large 4. Sueppel asked for clarification on this system.
Caroline Dieterle rose next, and stated that she is particularly interested in Section 2.08
Appointments made by Council, and Sections 4.04, Duties of the City Manager. She
stated that three summers ago she helped to circulate a petition, asking for amendments to
the Charter, and that one of these amendments being asked for was to have the City
Council appoint the Chief of Police. She would like to see this inserted in Section 2.08.
She said they had at least 1,600 signatures on this petition, and there was widespread
support for this. Under the Duties of City Manager, she noted that point 3, under 4.04,
"appoint the Chief of the Police Department and the Chief of the Fire Department with
line approval of the City Council." She asked why this was underlined in the new version
of the Charter, to which Sueppel noted that this is new. Kubby noted that this is a
clarification in the current process. Dieterle stated that she feels the Council should
appoint the Chief of Police, not the City Manager. Her other concern is the remark made
at the beginning of this meeting, in reference to Section 8.01, Item C. She asked about
this section, and if the number of signatures has changed. Sueppel noted that this is the
Iowa Code, and not a change by the Commission. Her next concern centered around the
"right to petition" issue. Sueppel asked Dilkes for clarification on this issue. Dukes
stated that the State Code provides that objections can be filed to a petition to annend the
Charter, and that those objections will be reviewed by a committee, made up of the
mayor, the clerk, and another council member, to hear those objections. Those
provisions come from Section 362.4. Dieterle stated that she feels the Commission
should make some representation to the State that this deludes tine redress that the citizens
have, as it means it is much easier for the city government to keep something from being
voted on that has been petitioned for validly. One of the main points of these petitions
was that the citizens wanted the Chief of Police to be appointed by the Council.
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 5
Tom Carsner stated that lie wanted to echo some of the issues they discussed in his group,
as well as to offer an apology to anyone if he steps on toes. He stated that the election of
the mayor does have a direct impact on the powers of the mayor. He feels we need to
change the Charter to a "strong mayor" form of governmient. (TAPE ENDS) He feels
that the low salaries paid to the City Council members eliminates many people from
co»sidering these positions, due to the time commitment. He feels the counselors should
receive a part-time salary, somewhere in the range of $20,000430,000, in order to allow
these people to give more of their time. He does not like the City Manager position being
relied upon so heavily. He feels citizens would give more input if the council members
were responding more directly to them. Sueppel asked him what he considers a strong
mayor form of government. Carsner stated that it would be one where that person is
elected directly by the citizens, and that powers which currently reside with the city
manager would come to this position, as well.
Dean Thornberry stated that he disagrees with the previous speaker. He thinks the
current form of government is fine.
Jay Honolian, 1510 Somerset Lane, stated that under 7.01 B Limitations, the new item, K,
being added, lie suggested the words "capital improvements" rather than "public
improvements". He stated that he is also strongly in favor of the current form of
government, and that it works well in this community. He also noted that the language,
concerning the Chief of Police and Chief of the Fire Department, is excellent, and he
agrees with this. He further noted that the City Council has always been a part of this
process, and the language now shows that. He finished with thanking the Commission
for their hard work.
John Balmer, 10 Princeton Court, next addressed the Commission. He thanked tine
Commission for a very thorough discussion on the Charter. He stated that lie would also
endorse the current form of government. He does strongly encourage term limitations for
the mayoral position. Kubby asked if lie had any specific ideas on limits, to which
Balmer replied that lie feels two terms should be it. Under Section 7.03, Eligibility, he
asked if the Commission has discussed "raising this bar" or not, as he feels this number
should be higher as it is too easy to obtain signatures. Sueppel stated that they have had
discussion oh this, and two issues were raised. One is that on all initiative and
referendum petition, you must be a qualified voter, versus an eligible voter; and that this
is a limitation. Secondly, 25% is a fairly substantial number, and Kubby noted that the
average would have been around 2,200, so the 2,500 is actually above this. Sueppel
noted again that these have to be qualified voters at the courthouse, or they do not count.
Jolm Neff from Iowa City stated that he would like to reemphasize that the city has
doubled in size in the last 30 years, and there is a much wider range of incomes now. He
feels they may need to make some adjustments because of this. One would be to increase
the number of districts, and he feels that four should be the minimum. He would also like
to see the council play a much more active role. He states that the power has shifted from
the council to the city manager way too far, and there needs to be a balance.
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 6
Garry Klein next spoke to the Commission. He thanked the Commission, and noted that
the small groups concept was a good idea. He stated that he agrees with John earlier, that
each district should vote for the representative in their district. He noted that this would
simplify the voting process, in his opinion. Some clarification was made on how this
process is currently.
Dieterle stated that she had a question concerning Section 7.01, D. She asked the
Commission if they could give her all example of what subject would be appropriate for
an initiative and referendum. Kubby stated that one example silo can think of is a
pesticide ordinance. She noted that this would be an issue -oriented ordinance, if it were
not preempted, for instance. The First Avenue project was used as an example. Dieterle
then asked which boards and commissions are mandated by the State. She noted that
under this Section, it states the Council. Sueppel noted that Planning and Zoning, Board
of Adjustment, Civil Service, and Library would be examples. Dieterle questioned the
Commission on whether or not it would be possible, under Boards and Commissions, that
tine City would have to have a board of Police Review, and give it some real power.
Sueppei stated that lie believes this could be done. Dieterle requested that the
Commission consider adding this to the Charter, Sueppel stated that they woad have to
defer to t1le City Attorney, and the Commission will find out about a Police Review
Board.
Carrie Watson stated that she would agree with Tom Carsner, who spoke earlier. She
feels there needs to be more responsiveness to the electorate in Iowa City, and her
question for tine Commission is ]low seriously are they looking at changing the actual
structure of the City to a strong mayor. Chappell noted that their small group focused on
the issue as it was written — the idea of having a mayor elected by the council versus a
weaker mayor, elected by the electorate.
Dale Shultz spoke next, and stated that lie supports the idea of electing district council
members, only fiom those who live in those districts. He feels this is a good idea as it
makes the election smaller, and more accessible, especially for new candidates.
Ann Bovbjerg, Iowa City, asked the Commission if they have received anything from the
citizens in Iowa City, or from the City government or its different division, that has
suggested any specific changes that are desired. Chappell stated that some of the changes
in the latest "red lined" version of the Charter are reflective of comments they have heard
from the public, He noted that staff has only brought up issues needing clarification.
Kubby noted that this is mainly in the initiative and referendum section, in order to make
it more clear for people. Sueppel noted that there have not been any major issues brought
up.
Date Shultz spoke again and asked about Section 7.01 B — Limitation on initiatives and
referendums. He asked about the statement "or.notice to bidders" and asked for
clarification. Sueppel noted that they were coning up with two different cut-off points.
Discussion continued or tine process with bidding and letting of contracts. Kubby
Charter Review Commission
December 1, 2004
Page 7
followed up with telling the attendees that the Commission will be reviewing all of
tonight's information, suggestions, comments, etc., and that those who signed up this
evening will be getting a personal invitation to the next public hearing. Sueppel noted
that meetings are scheduled for December 8, from 7-9:30 AM; December 13, from 7-9:30
AM; and then tentatively there will be another public hearing on January 20 at 7:00 PM
at City Hall.
ATTACHMENT # 1 (page 1 of 2)
(Flipchart for Werner/Green group)
a or
No change In duties- why have the Mayor elected separately? This would create
confusion with voters.
Directly elected Mayor would be more democratic.
A candidate may have name recognition with our citizens; however, this person may not
be best qualified to be Mayor. Experience and leadership were discussed.
Separate election creates expectations for the Mayor. With no changes In duties this
would create voter confusion.
Directly elected Mayor would have more connection to citizens.
More money spent on elections. May eliminate some candidates due to financial
resource Ilmltations:
Since the Mayor represents the City, citizens should elect.
Selection behind the scenes. Want the process more public.
Try with a sunset clause.
Trust people to vote, take part in elections and elect the Mayor.
ATTACHMENT # 1 (page 2 of 2)
(Filpchart for Werner/Green group)
District Seats
Care about districts as well as entire community. Current system is best of both worlds.
What is the most Important Issue facing our community? Depending where voters live
the answer will vary. Need district representation.
Candidates run primary campaign in 113rd of City. General election candidates need to
reach entire community. Not fair to voters who need education on the candidate as they
are expected to vote. Confusion for voters.
Confusion — I can't vote for you because you are not in my district,
Size of districts. Redistrict after census. 2.02 Make this a requirement.
Current system is hard to understand.
Shape of districts.
Don't want districts to override City. Keeping the best interest of our community in mind.
Difficulty in recruiting good City Council candidates to run.
Voting systems. Vote for too may candidates.
Election by district only to avoid confusion.
How are the districts drawn?
ATTACHMENT # 2 (page 1 of 2)
(Flipchart for Rowat/lensing group)
Electlon of Mayor
More costly campaigns
Disadvantage to those who cannot raise contributions
More conflict - power perspective
Directly elected by people - more democratic
If duties stay the same, keep current process
Term limits for mayoral position
Opportunity for all Council Members
What is role of Mayor?
Ceremonial - equal among Council
OR
More power/responsibilities
Stronger role for Mayor - change election process
Roles of Council/Mayor/City Manager
Council elected Mayor - not necessarily best person
Directly elected Mayor - not necessarily best person
Is there community sentiment for a strong mayor?
Philosophical vs. pragmatic
Concern is lack of effective leadership
Currently - Council
Time spent reacting vs. being proactive
Choices:
do nothing
keep with term limits
change role/responsibilities and way of electing
ATTACHMENT # 2 (page 2 of 2)
(Flipchart for Rowat/Lensing group)
District Structure
Current mix works - current city size supports Citywide voting for all seats
Minimum of 4 districts
All districts (w/strong Mayor)
Disenfranchised voter if not allowed to vote for all seats
Geographic districts have specific Issues
Within special districts
Social Interests
Economic Interests
District Issues vs. City-wide Issues
More districts needed - forces one to know your district
Overall viewing of city vs. district viewpoint
Full time job @ part-time pay .
More districts needed (4 districts/3 at large)
Vote by entire community not just district
Election confusion - more time spent on educating public than discussing Issues
Population Increases economlc/income differences
More districts would help
District -wide election
More representative of district
Less $, less signs
Smaller population base to represent
Council size of 7 - probably appropriate
District Issues or geographic distribution
CaCharlerRevlewCommissbn/communllyaUachmenl
-I
,wh,old MA I L-4 M- [IN
imp
Kri'likC4 �.
M-1691 DEEIIdTTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS, §362.2
CITIES
CHAPTER 362
DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Referred to in §376.1
362.1 Citation. 362.6 Conflict of interest.
362.7 Prior measures valid.
362.2 Definitions.
362.3 Publication of notices. 362.9 ApplicatConstruion o
362.9 Application of city code.
1
362.4 Petition of eligible electors.
362.5 Interest in public contract 362.10 Police officers and fire fighters.
Elections on public measures.
prohibited - exceptions. 362.11
362.1 Citation.
This chapter and chapters 364, 368, 372, 376, 380, 384, 388 and 392 may be cited as the
:t
"City Code of Iowa".
[C75, 77, 79, 81, §362.11
j
362.2 Definitions.
As used in the city code of Iowa, on the context otherwise requires:
1. 'Administrative agency" means an agency established by a city for any city purpose
city facility, as provided in chapter 392, except a board
3
or for the administration of any
to a municipal utility, a zoning commission and zoning board of
;
established administer
or any other agency which is controlled by state law. An administrative agency
If
adjustment, an
may be designated as a board, board of trustees, commission, or by another title.
agency is advisory only, such a designation must be included in its title.
revision or repeal of an existing ordinance or code of ordinances.
2. Amendment" means a
3. "Charter" means the form of government selected by a city as provided in chapter 372.
but including a county, township, school
p
4. "City" means a municipal corporation, not
any district or authority. When used in relation to land area, "city"
district, or special-purpose
includes only the area within the city limits.
5. "City code" means the city code of Iowa.
"City all or of a waterworks, gasworks, sanitary sewago system,
t
9
6. utility" means part
drainage system, electric light and power plant and system, heating plant, cable
storm water
or television system, telephone or telecommunications systems or services
communication
offered separately or combined with any system or service specified in this subsection or
by a city, including all land, easements,
?
authorized by other law, any of which are owned
rights -of -way, fixtures, equipment, accessories, improvements, appurtenances, and other
(:
property necessary or useful for the operation of the utility.
"Clerk" the recording and recordkeeping officer of a city regardless of title.
9. means
8. "Council" means the governing body of a city.
9. "Council member" means a member of a council, including an alderman.
it is defined in section 39.3, subsection 6.
10. "Eligible elector" means the same as
"Governmental body" means the United States of America or an agency thereof, a
11.
state, a political subdivision of a state, a school corporation, a public authority, a public
district, or any other public body.
12. "May" confers a power.
13. "Measure" means an ordinance, amendment, resolution, or motion.
14. "Must" states a requirement.
"Officer" a natural person elected or appointed to a fined term and exercising
!
I'
15. means
some portion of the power of a city.
16. "Ordinance" means a city law of a general and permanent nature.
§362.2, DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
17. "Person' means an individual, firm, partnership, domestic or foreign corporation,
company, association or joint stock association, trust, or other legal entity, and include#
a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative thereof, but does not include a
governmental body. 9?
18, "Property", "real property", and "personal property" have the same meaning as
provided in section 4.1.
19. "Recorded vote" means a record, roll call vote.
20. "Registered voter" means the same as it is defined in section 39.3, subsection 11. ;
21. "Resolution" or "motion" means a council statement of policy or a council order for
action to be taken, but "motion" does not require a recorded vote.
22. "Secretary" of a utility board means the recording and recordkeeping officer of th'
utility board regardless of title.
23. "Shall" imposes a duty.
[C50, §391A.1; C54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, §363A.2, 391A.1; C75, 77, 79, 81, §362.21 '$
90 Acts, ch 1206, §1; 93 Acts, ch 153, §1; 94 Acts, ch 1169, §65; 99 Acts, ch 63, §2, 8
Referred to in 0291.1, 169C.1, 200.22, 206.34, 364.4, 386.1, 390.1, 403.7, 592.9. 717.1, 7178.1
362.3 Publication of notices.
1. Unless otherwise provided by state law:
a. If notice of an election, hearing, or other official action is required by the city code, the
notice must be published at least once, not less than four nor more than twenty days before
the date of the election, hearing, or other action.
b. A publication required by the city code must be in a newspaper published at least once
weekly and having general circulation in the city. However, if the city has a population of
two hundred or less, or in the case of ordinances and amendments to be published in a city
in which no newspaper is published, a publication may be made by posting in three public
places in the city which have been permanently designated by ordinance.
2. In the case of notices of elections, a city with a population of two hundred or less ineets
the publication requirement of this section by posting notices of elections in three public
places which have been designated by ordinance.
[R60, §1133; C73, §492; C97, §686, 687; C24, 27, 31, 35, §5720, 5721, 5721-a1; C39, §5720,
5721, 5721.1; C46, 50, §366.7 - 366.9; C54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, §366.7; C75, 77, 79, 81, §362.31
93 Acts, ch 143, §48; 94 Acts, ch 1180, §50; 2010 Acts, ch 1061, §180
Referted to In 426.12. 26.15, 37.4, 330.18, 336.13.336.16, 364.2. 364.7, 364.12, 368.2, 368.3, 369.15, 368.20, 372.4, 372.9, 372.13, 376.5,
380.7, 380.8, 390.10, 384.12, 384.22, 384.25, 384.37, 384.38, 384.40, 384.50, 384.60, 384,83, 386.3, 392.7, 403.9, 404.2, 404B.2, 4048.3, 414.3,
414A, 427B.1, 427B.20, 42711.26
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
k`. 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.
[C75, 77, 79, 81, §362.41
89 Acts, ch 136, §70; 94 Acts, ch 1180, §51
Refenvd to in 428E.17, 37.2, 43.112, 330.17, 364.2, 364.4, 368.3, 372.4, 372.6, 372.11, 372.13, 376.2, 384.7, 384.12, 384.24A, 38426, 3882,
'i 399.2, 392.5
362.5 Interest in public contract prohibited — exceptions.
1. When used in this section, "contract" means any claim, account, or demand against or
agreement with a city, express or implied.
2. A city officer or employee shall not have an interest, director indirect, in any contract
1' ,