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