Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-9-2014 Charter Review CommissionTHE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:45 AM Helling Conference Room 410 East Washington Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED a. Minutes of the meeting on 11/25/14 b. Matt Evans 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF 4. REVIEW CHARTER a. Initiative and Referendum b. Election of Mayor c. Update - Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board d. Use of word "person" e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) 5. PUBLIC COMMENT 6. PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 PM) a. Format b. Televised — TBD c. Publicity 7. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE— [BRING 2015 CALENDARS] (7:45 AM unless specified) December 23 January 6 January 7 (FORUM) [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] 8. ADJOURNMENT Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2014-7:45 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (arrived at 7:52), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr 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 Meeting on 11/10/14 b. Letter from Rita Bettis Chappell asked if anyone had any proposed amendments to the minutes. Craig noted that she did not agree to attend the League forum, as is stated in the minutes, and Kubby attended. Vanderhoef moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. League of Women Voters Forum — Chappell spoke about the League of Women Voters' recent forum, noting that there were perhaps a dozen people present, in addition to the four Commission Members and the League. He noted that they briefly covered the history of the Charter, talked about the Commission's review process, and then shared some of the issues that have identified as needing further input, i.e., whether to change to a directly -elected mayor, whether to have pure districts, whether to change initiative and referendum so that eligible electors can sign petitions, and whether to do something about increasing compensation for Council Members. Chappell explained the issue of qualified versus eligible; what an initiative and a referendum are, giving an example; pros and cons of a directly elected mayor; and the issue of Council compensation. Another question asked why the Mayor and the City Manager cannot share power. Kubby noted that a few of the questions were not about Charter issues, but more about the City Council. Sullivan asked if the majority of participants were League members. Kubby responded that the majority were League members, with a few members of the public present as well. Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 2 REVIEW CHARTER: a. Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board — Chappell noted that he was in contact with the Chair of the CPRB and briefly discussed with her the issue of a name change for this board. He stated that she showed a high level of concern regarding any changes whatsoever, and that she believed the CPRB itself would have concerns regarding this. Chappell stated that he reviewed this Commission's feelings regarding 'resident' versus 'citizen,' but that the Chair did not share the same concerns. Chappell stated that he offered to have a few of the Members meet with the CPRB to better explain their stance on this issue, should it come down to being part of a formal recommendation. Chappell then spoke to the CPRB's possible proposal to remove any reference to the Charter from their policies and procedures. The Chair told Chappell that this came from their legal counsel. He stated that her description was that this just concerns their public hearing and their concern that people are expecting the CPRB to make recommendations at the public hearing. Kubby noted that this is basically the CPRB's fundamental function that is in this document and that this is what makes it so powerful. Chappell stated that he then spoke to the CPRB's legal counsel very briefly and that his recollection was that since the Board is unable to make recommendations about policies, practices, procedures, it would make sense to remove this from the Charter. Karr stated that she was at a few of the CPRB's meetings, and she shared how the CPRB views some of these issues. For instance, they read Al totally to refer to the community forum, separate from the ordinance duties. Kubby stated that perhaps their job is to make this more clear, that the 'ability to make recommendations' is not just about the annual public process. Others agreed, and Kubby stated that they could make it clearer in the ordinance. Karr stated that the ordinance is very clear, as it is more detailed. Reviewing this, Chappell suggested stopping the sentence after'to hold at least one hearing on the procedures of the Iowa City Police Department.' Then delete the 'and' and capitalize 'To,' making this paragraph #2, changing 2 and 3 to 3 and 4. He stated that this should make it clearer that this is one of the CPRB's powers and in their authority to do so. He asked if there was consensus to these changes and Members agreed. Karr reiterated that the confusion started with the feeling that people will get some sort of response or satisfaction, or even dialogue, with the Police at this public forum, and that this is not a requirement in the ordinance or the Charter. Chappell then asked Members what their feelings are on the name issue. He reiterated that he told the CPRB's Chair that if the Commission felt there should be a change to their name that he would send a couple of Members to meet with the CPRB and have a dialogue regarding a possible recommendation to the Council. Karr noted that originally this board was called the 'Police Citizens Review Board,' and that through work with the Diversity Committee and the Board itself, the name was recently changed to the 'Citizens Police Review Board.' Sullivan stated that given the Board's history, he would not be inclined to fight them on a name change. Chappell asked how others felt, and Vanderhoef responded that for her, it was the citizens that pushed to form this board to begin Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 3 with and that they have heavy ownership to the review process. She believes that to turn it around and say'police' only would be a tough fight. She agreed with others that it would not be worth it. Chappell suggested that he, Craig, and one other Member have some dialogue with the CPRB regarding the changes they are proposing throughout the Charter and why. He asked who would join him and Craig at such a meeting. Sullivan agreed that he would join in this. Karr will let Chappell know when the CPRB's next meeting is scheduled. Atkins asked if they as a Commission have a definite stand on this issue. Kubby noted that she thought there were two possibilities, one was to have it be 'Police Review Board,' and the other to have 'Resident' in place of 'Citizen.' Chappell stated that they could call it 'Community Police Review Board,' or any number of things, but that the sense he got was that they do not want the name changed at all. b. Use of word "citizen" — Chappell noted that Kubby submitted a memo regarding this issue. He asked if she wanted to speak to this further. Kubby stated that she was trying to respect the Supreme Court's decision that corporations are people, while still separating it out in the Charter. She stated that Dilkes could speak to whether her suggestions would work or not. Kubby reviewed her suggestions, noting that she found a few instances in the Charter where a person meant something more than an individual. She reviewed her suggestions for change here, as well. Chappell spoke to his impressions, asking how they would define a person. Kubby asked if they could say 'human being' in this case. Shaw asked for some clarification here, asking if the concern is that an entity that operates for profit will receive a benefit that others in the community do not, or imply their powers. Kubby stated that the concern was the whole idea that these other entities are defined as people in the City's fundamental document, and trying to find a way to separate this out within the Charter. Schantz noted that the Supreme Court's decision really only applies to federal Constitutional rights and that a city can define a person how they want in broad terms. Craig asked what the State's definition is, and Dilkes replied that she will obtain this information for the Members. Kubby stated that if no one else is interested in this separation then there is no sense in spending more time on the issue. Atkins asked why this is so important here, and Kubby stated that for her it is both a political and a functional statement, that organizations are not human beings and should not have all of the same rights and privileges as a person. Schantz asked where, other than voting and political speech, this would matter. Shaw spoke to the use of the word 'person' within the Charter, noting that it is used liberally throughout. He spoke to how a corporation would have the same basis to say that they have a liberty to do what they want, or to challenge it should they be told they cannot do something —just as a person would. Chappell stated that he sees this recommendation's sole intent being to call partnership to corporations something other than 'persons.' His only concern is how they would then define 'person,' and that perhaps they do use 'human being.' Kubby noted that currently it is 'individual.' Schantz stated that he has no problem with this being separated out. Shaw spoke to what he thought originally was being said here, but now he understands what Kubby is attempting to do with her suggestions. Craig added that it is not a functional change in any way, but a semantic, political statement type of change instead. Shaw stated that he Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 4 would not have any issue with this. Chappell asked that they list this on the agenda for the next meeting and that Members go back and look at Kubby's material in this context. Kubby asked that Dilkes look at the State's definitions on this. c. Preamble and Definitions — Moving on, Chappell noted that Karr has printed up copies of Schantz's proposals. Schantz stated that he is agreeable to the red- line version included in the packet. Kubby stated that she likes the proposals put forth by Schantz, and Atkins spoke to the wording used here with 'We the People.' Chappell suggested that the dashes be replaced with numbers. Atkins noted that he is in favor of these suggested changes, but asked that they also have the right to go back and revisit this, should they change other things within the Charter that would be tied to this. Dilkes noted that once they are done with their review, staff will prepare a red line version of the entire Charter so that Members can see all of the changes being made and can make further suggestions at that time. Chappell asked if there was tentative approval for the red line version of the Preamble at this point. Members agreed to approve this section. d. Initiative and Referendum — Chappell noted that they tentatively approved some of the basics, and that now they need to speak to 'qualified' and 'eligible' persons. He asked if Members had proposed changes to share at this point. Kubby referred to J, amendments affecting City zoning, asking if this was added after the last Charter review. Dilkes stated that the concern on this one is around the process for zoning changes, as it is set forth in State code. Sullivan asked Kubby if this is a concern for her, and Chappell responded that there are people who do not like this State code. Shaw stated that he had a question regarding sub -paragraph K, and if public improvement includes roads or anything other than structures. Dilkes stated that it is construction projects in general. The discussion turned to the two-year timeframe that both a referendum and initiative are considered good. Kubby spoke to how difficult and extended the process is for referendum and initiative, one that is not taken lightly. Then within two years, either the Council can change it or someone can come back with a referendum or an initiative again. Previous discussion had looked at extending this timeframe. Kubby stated that they had considered four years, not wanting the timeframe to be too long as things do change over time. Chappell gave an example of how four years could be too long, especially if you are trying to get something moved forward. Vanderhoef stated that the other side of this would be unintended consequences showing up. Sullivan stated that he does share the concerns that Chappell and Vanderhoef have voiced, but that it could also go the other way, that two years may be too short. Chappell asked if there is any history of Council undoing what's been done at two years. Sullivan spoke to red light cameras, noting that this was with the understanding that Council would revisit the issue, which expires in a few months time. Conversation continued on this issue, with Dilkes noting that she does not recall any instances where Council made changes, but that people have taken advantage of the two-year timeframe to bring an issue forward again. Atkins noted that a rule of thumb with projects is: it takes a year to approve a project, it Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 5 takes a year to design it, and it takes a year to build it. Kubby noted that public improvements, however, aren't subject to referendum and initiative, so they won't need to address that here. Kubby stated that she wonders if two years is long enough to understand the unintended consequences, adding that you need at least three data points to show a trend. With lag times included into this equation, the timeframe goes even further. Craig stated that if people aren't going to see the changes very quickly, then they may hesitate to sign petitions. Moyers -Stone stated that with the 21-ordinance, for example, it seemed that they voted on and discussed the issue a lot. Sullivan noted that the 21-ordinance example is one that appeared to be working after two years, but that after the two-year period, it was obvious that it was working even better than expected. Chappell stated that he did not recall the Council 'undoing' anything like this. He added that the only thing that comes to mind is the First Avenue issue and he briefly shared what he remembers of this issue. Shaw asked about the resubmission of a measure and whether it would be considered, if an initiative received a positive number of votes, sooner than the two-year timeframe. Chappell stated that he would not be interested in something like this as there is not a consistent number of voters in these types of elections. Members continued to discuss the initiative and referendum issue. Moyers -Stone spoke to how if the 'eligible' versus 'qualified' issue were to change it could open the door to creating higher standards for some of these other issues. Kubby stated that perhaps they need to hear Dilkes' reaction to the ACLU's attorney's interpretation. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to know the number of cities in Iowa that have initiative and referendum as a possibility for their citizens. Dilkes replied that there is only one other city in Iowa. Vanderhoef stated that this tells her that the majority of cities don't want to engage in this type of thing with their citizens. Dilkes then spoke to Members regarding the ACLU's letter, noting that it makes allegations a constitutionality, and distributed copies of Chapter 362. She added that there is no argument shown or any case law with respect to the constitutional issues, and that she addressed these issues in her memo dated August 5, 2014. Continuing, Dilkes stated that the main argument being made by the ACLU is that the Charter must follow the State Code provision of 362.4 for petition requirements. Dilkes stated that there is nothing in State law that requires you to set a certain petition requirement for initiative and referendum. She pointed out State Code 362.4, noting that she does not agree with the ACLU's view on this matter. She explained why, pointing out what the State Code says specifically regarding this issue. e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) - none PUBLIC COMMENT: Caroline Dieterle addressed the Commission regarding the possible change of 'citizen' to 'resident.' She added that she understands that the Commission's intention is good. However, she raised some concern about how this plays into the 'eligible elector' issue. Dieterle stated that she believes it to be contradictory to use 'resident' in place of 'citizen.' She then stated that she is appalled by the Commission's worry about citizens filing petitions and asking for votes on Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 6 things. She added that this is a participatory democracy, one where you urge people to vote and participate, and yet when people try to do this, it becomes impossible with all of the roadblocks that get thrown up. Dieterle then stated that in reply to Dilkes' assertions about the ACLU's letter, she finds it interesting to hear that there is a section of the Charter that ignores State law. She added that this then implies that they can do other things under the Home Rule that also ignore State law. She suggested they pass a pesticide ordinance under this, and abandon the idea that you cannot do these things under Iowa Code. She added that she finds this whole thing exceedingly offensive, that things should be made easier for the people to participate in city government. Dieterle continued to voice her unhappiness with these issues, noting that to use 'resident' in the Preamble is just not right to her. Her main concern, however, regards the initiative and referendum. She has participated in these petition drives and stated that it is a very onerous job to undertake. Schantz explained his stance on this issue. Dieterle stated that 'eligible elector' does cover it, that you don't actually have to be registered to vote but that you are eligible to. Martha Hampel stated that she agrees with Dieterle's views on these issues. She too has collected the 2,500 signatures for a petition, noting that it is more than what the State requires. Hampel too noted that it is a lot of hard work to undertake a petition drive, that people do not take these issues lightly. She added that it is really just a few people doing a lot of hard work for the collective city. That with having to work and raise families, many are unable to take part in any way — other than being able to sign the petitions. She believes they should eliminate the 'qualified elector' requirement and have 'eligible electors' able to sign petitions. SCHEDULE NEXT PUBLIC FORUM: a. Date — tentative January 7 b. Location — Public Library C. Time — Members agreed to a 6:00 PM start time to begin this forum. d. Format — Chappell stated that they should briefly discuss the format. He noted that Kubby sent the information from the last Charter review forum for their review. He asked if Members wanted to follow a format similar to this. Sullivan stated that his preference would be for more of an open format, but that if they are going with a 'steered' format, then this would be a good one to follow. Members spoke briefly to what issues they want highlighted at this forum. Craig suggested that if they do go with this format that the Members themselves rotate between groups. She believes they would get to interact more with those who attend. Kubby stated that her concern is the building of rapport with the small group, and that staying with the same group helps to keep this going. Karr shared her concerns with a January date as there has not yet been any publicity for the forum, and secondly, the subjects have not yet been set. She added that the press release and all of the publicity will be based on the format of the forum. Members discussed how some of these issues overlap and how they would want the format to go. Schantz noted that December 9 is the last meeting he will be able to attend for a while, and he suggested they discuss at that time these issues a bit further so they can firm up their agenda. Members continued to firm up their main topics for the forum, ultimately deciding on 'qualified' versus 'eligible,' Council compensation, and then combine direct election of the mayor and pure districts. Chappell suggested that Karr move ahead with the publicity for this forum. e. Televised — TBD Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 7 TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): December 9 December 23 January 6 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 A.M., seconded by Schantz. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission November 25, 2014 Page 8 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM o o O O o o O o O O o NAME EXP, O 00 W N V Q N A N N a N N 6> O t0 N W W O A N 00 O N <Jf A 4 °a A ®s A a A > A .a A .a A a A . A -N A N A A 4 P. A A 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X X X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 411/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 411115 X X X X 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 X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1115 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ X X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X XX 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 X Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X 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 O/ X X X Vanderhoef E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Marian Karr From: Matt Evans <mattevans60@gmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 11:36 AM To: City Charter Subject: Change the Unfair Distinction between Qualified and Eligible Electors Dear Iowa City Charter Review Commission Member, My name is Matthew Evans, and I am a community member living in Iowa City and a senior at the University of Iowa. I am writing you today to strongly urge you to support a change to the city's charter regarding the distinction between qualified and eligible electors. Our city charter has provisions allowing citizens to propose new initiatives and repeal existing ordinances by submitting petitions. Unfortunately, the "qualified" voter distinction presents an unfair barrier to those who are able to vote, but are not currently registered to vote, from participating in the democratic process of petitioning their local government. This places an undue burden on students, the poor, and other marginalized members of our community. To run for public office, and ironically to be in a position to create such burdensome distinctions, state law prescribes that one need only collect signatures from "eligible" electors, not "qualified" electors. Our current city charter goes far beyond that state law (Iowa Code 362.4) and restricts a significantly large portion of the voting -age population from participation to the fullest extent. This distinction is simply contrary to the purpose of the charter provisions allowing initiative and referendum and ought to be eliminated. Thank you so much for your time and consideration, and I hope you support a change to eliminate the "qualified elector" requirement. Sincerely yours, Matthew Evans Marian Karr From: Adam B Sullivan <sullivan.ab@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 3:13 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: Charter Commission memo Hi Marian - Could you please include this memo in the upcoming meeting packet? Thanks! abs Memo: "Eligible" and "qualified" electors in the Iowa City Charter Adam B Sullivan, Charter Review Commissioner December 2014 The Iowa City Charter allows citizens to propose new measures and repeal existing measures through petitions. However, not all adult citizens are able to participate in this process. Instead, only signatures from "qualified electors" - those who are currently registered to vote in Iowa City - are counted. Signatures from many "eligible electors" - signatures from those who are eligible to register, but who aren't currently registered in Iowa City - are thrown out. As the Charter Review Commission considers changes to the city charter, I submit a series of possible concerns about the charter's current distinction between "qualified" and "eligible" electors: - It's a barrier to representative democracy. There are many thoughtful adults in our community who choose not to participate in election voting for various reasons. These people still have the right to participate in representative democracy through other avenues, including through initiatives and referendums. - It's contrary to the spirit of Iowa politics. Iowans pride themselves on clean and open politics. Since the last Charter Commission process, Iowa law has changed to allow us to register to vote on election day at our polling places. That process eliminates the distinction between voters and non -voters - all eligible adults have the same right to walk into their polling place and vote, regardless of prior paperwork. The current city charter upholds that outdated distinction. - It disproportionately hurts underrepresented populations. People who are new to our community are among the most likely not to have a valid local voter registration. Because we know young people and poor people tend to be more transient than others, we must carefully consider whether we are unfairly excluding certain citizen populations from the petition process. - Very few other public proceedings require such a high burden. Even candidates running for public office only need to collect signatures from eligible electors in order to get their names on the ballot. Our current charter is uniquely restrictive and goes well beyond state law, which only requires those signing ordinance petitions be eligible electors (Iowa Code 362.4). - It presents a significant logistical challenge for petitioners. Those gathering signatures do not have a way of knowing whether signers are currently and accurately registered to vote and they cannot force signers to submit voter registration forms. As a result, some petitioners had to gather nearly twice as many signatures as required in order to accommodate signatures being rejected. - It also presents a challenge for the city. Because only qualified electors can make valid signatures, each name must be checked against voter registration roles. If eligible electors' signatures were counted, city staff could simply verify that the signature is accompanied by a valid Iowa City address. - Finally, there does not appear to be a good reason for keeping the distinction in place. The restriction is an unnecessary limit on citizen participation and, in absence of good reasons to the contrary, I recommend the Charter Commission give strong consideration to eliminating the distinction between qualified and eligible electors, therefore allowing all eligible electors to sign initiative and referendum petitions. Adam B Sullivan 319.430.7882 http://adambsullivan.com Congress shall stake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress ofgrievances. (COMIUUNI[`fy D1IS(CUSS1[ONo ][j O 1Li ENr11i1I.0 ]111-4 A 11MEA. V DMIl"O1. V li S `11'0 IOWA UI 11 US CHARTER ll ER JANUA1[,�Y 79 M A S 6-000 P1Vl;.<, IOWA CC 111T I" t[ B111C 1141tBRARY I[3UUM A (Accessible to people with special needs.) QUESTIONS: clharterL&iowacity.or CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION COMMUNITY DISCUSSION AGENDA Wednesday, January 7; 2015 6:00 PM Room A, Iowa City Public Library 123 S. Linn Street 1. Opening Remarks by Chair 2. Introductions of Charter 3. Break out into small groi 4. Reports of small groups 5. Large discussion of Cha 6. Upcoming Meeting Sche DATES TO BE DECIDED [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] 7. Adjournment PRESS RELEASE DRAFT COMMENTS SOUGHT ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO IOWA CITY'S CHARTER The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter, Pursuant to the existing Charter, 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 January 7, 2015 6:00 p.m., In Room A of the Iowa City Public Library (123 S. Linn St.). The Issues to be discussed by the community on January 7 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" Le. general election held In the districts only? (3) Initiative/Referendum- qualified verses eligible. (4) Council Compensation. The Charter Review Commission Invites everyone to be a part of tills public discussion. Additional Information can be found on the City website cltycharter@Iowa clty.org To subscribe and unsubscribe from ICGov email releases click here: http: Uwww.lcgov,org/subscrlbe.asp C ofy 0.9' Oc��<,� (',�lk":y Date: December 3, 2014 To: Charter Review Commission From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorne}�-�rn Re: Definition of "person" VV During your discussion on November 25, 2014 regarding the definition of "person" in the City Charter you asked whether the State Code defines the term. Chapter 4 of the Iowa Code, entitled "Construction of Statutes," provides that in construing Iowa statutes the following rule will govern the meaning of "person" "unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the general assembly, or repugnant to the context of the statute": Person. Unless otherwise provided by law, "person" means individual, corporation, limited liability company, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership or association, or any other legal entity." I have not reviewed all definitions in the six volumes of the Iowa Code. However, a cursory review reveals that it is not uncommon to see a specific definition of "person" in a chapter of the Code. For example, Chapter 216, the Iowa Civil Rights Act, has a similar definition but includes the "State of Iowa" and "political subdivisions" as a "person". Section 362.2, which sets forth the definitions applicable to the "City Code of Iowa" (the chapters governing cities) also has a similar definition but excludes "governmental body" and defines it separately. The Probate Code, Chapter 633, states that "person" "includes natural persons and corporations." I will be available at your meeting on December 9 to answer questions. Cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk