Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-23-2014 Charter Review CommissionINERTM M. � • CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, December 23, 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 12/9/14 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF 4. REVIEW CHARTER a. Update - Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board b. Use of word "person" c. Section 4.02, Accountability and Removal d. Article 6, Campaign Contributions and Expenditures e. Section 7.03(c), Petitions, Affidavit of Circulator f. Section 7.07, Prohibition On Establishment of Stricter Conditions or Req. g. Section 8.02, Charter Review Commission h. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) 5. PUBLIC COMMENT 6. PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 PM) 7. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE — [BRING 2015 CALENDARS] (7:45 AM unless specified) January 6 January 7 (FORUM) [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] 8. ADJOURNMENT Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2014 — 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Melvin Shaw (8:15), Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Julie Voparil (left 8:10) Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes (arrived 8:10) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None 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 11/25/14 Craig the first paragraph on page 5 and questioned the language 'won't sign petitions if there aren't immediate results.' Kubby stated that on page 3, under B, the discussion was about the word 'people' not 'citizen.'; and also noted on page 5, in the paragraph before e. Commission discussion of other sections, the second line —'noting that it makes allegations a constitutionality.' Something was missing. Staff will follow-up with changes. b. Matt Evans (correspondence) Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar with the proposed changes. Atkins seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Shaw absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Deputy City Clerk Voparil noted that Karr and Dilkes will be arriving after the special Council meeting ends. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Initiative and Referendum — Chappell began by stating that he believes the biggest issue they need to tackle right now is the 'qualified' versus 'eligible' matter. If there is consensus to make a change here, from qualified to eligible, then they will need to have further discussion in order to see if there are other changes that people want as well. He noted that if there is not a consensus to make this change, then there still may be other changes that people would like to discuss further. Continuing, Chappell stated that Sullivan has come up with some items for discussion, and he suggested they start with these. Sullivan stated that he believes the petition process is a powerful one and that they should cast a wide net in terms of who is able to participate in this process. He Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 2 added that they need to be really careful in the current rules about who is not participating and whose signatures are likely being thrown out. Sullivan also noted that this is an issue they have received a lot of correspondence on, the majority of which has said they should do away with 'qualified electors.' He encouraged Members to keep an open mind and to hear what people have to say at the January public forum. Schantz noted that he is in favor of changing from 'qualified' to 'eligible.' Craig asked if they would be considering increasing the number of signatures required if they did make this change. Sullivan stated that he believes they would want to increase this number, and he asked if the 2,500 threshold isn't outdated at this point. He added that he is not looking at this as making it easier to do initiative and referendum. Instead he cares about who can participate, and he believes a broad range of people should be allowed to. Vanderhoef noted that this is the sticking point for her, that if they do not have 'registered,' then how do they know that people signing petitions are even U.S. citizens. Sullivan stated that his response would be how do they know that the people who signed the petition to get Terry Branstad on the ballot were U.S. citizens. He responded that you do not know, that addresses are the only thing checked. Vanderhoef stated that there are a lot of individuals who do not even know if they are an 'eligible' voter. She added that this is not an onerous task, and that these individuals do not appear to want to put forth the effort to find out. The discussion continued, with Members sharing their opinion on whether signers of petitions should be 'qualified' or'eligible.' Chappell stated that to him it is much more than just signing a petition. He thinks it is akin to voting. Having said that, he questioned if someone who chooses not to register to vote should be able to dictate to the city council to adopt a certain measure. Sullivan stated that he understands both Chappell's and Vanderhoef's points, but that he is really concerned about the point of view that if someone hasn't done the necessary paperwork that they shouldn't be heard. He added that there are many people who do not want to register to vote, and who may do so on election day. He does not believe they should be left out of this particular process. Craig stated that there are other avenues for people to participate, such as coming to a council meeting and speaking on an issue. Kubby noted that to her this process is what allows things to come 'from the bottom up,' and so she wants the broadest participation possible. She added that she would be in favor of going to 'eligible,' but that she is not sure how she feels about the number of signatures required for petitions. The discussion continued, with Chappell again giving his stance that if someone is going to require council to do something, that they should at least register to vote. That way the person can vote those council members in or out. Chappell added that worst case is you start having initiatives that go to the council, because most anyone can sign them, and then the council just keeps voting things down. Members talked about the waste of time and money dealing with constant issues that go nowhere. Sullivan noted that staff would probably be spending a lot less time, and therefore money, verifying signatures. Kubby asked if there wasn't a time when it was 'eligible,' and then was changed to 'qualified.' Vanderhoef stated that she is not aware of this having been the case, Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 3 and others agreed. Sullivan noted that the section was amended in 2005 but that it does not specify what was changed. Kubby stated that she was thinking it was some time ago, that it went back and forth several times. Atkins stated that Karr would probably know the answer to this due to her longevity with the City. [Karr and Dilkes arrives; Voparil and Dulek left the meeting] Chappell asked Karr if in order to sign a petition if a signer has always had to be 'qualified.' She responded that it has been that way for the 30 years she has been with the City. Chappell suggested they find out where each of them stands on the issue and spoke briefly noting that it is a participatory democracy, that some choose to participate and some do not. By registering to vote, Chappell believes it shows that someone wants to participate in what happens where they live. Members continued to discuss the issue of registering to vote and what that privilege means. Sullivan stated that he believes it is wrong for the Commission to impose their vision of political participation on the people in this community. Vanderhoef reiterated that there is only one other city in the state that even allows the privilege of initiative and referendum. She stated that there is a reason why such cities want participation by their citizens, as a group, not as 'special.' Vanderhoef believes that the way things are done here in Iowa City gives them the best of both worlds — it isn't super -easy for anyone to sign a petition, and there is a legal way for them to be able to sign petitions. She stated that this creates a participatory system. Discussion continued, with Kubby speaking to how many signatures have to be gathered in order for a petition to be valid. She stated that it is not easy, and that it takes a lot of conversation and education with the public. To her the 'eligible' stance means more participation and a bit less work to gather the necessary signatures. Chappell stated that he would have no problem making the change if all that had to happen was the Council voting. The problem, to him, is that the process forces adoption of an issue, or an election. Sullivan stated that in his opinion, people need other recourses besides voting in elections. Allowing them to sign petitions, even if not registered to vote, gives them that recourse. Craig stated that to say it is too hard to vote does not make sense to her, when she knows you can vote in all kinds of places anymore — the grocery store, a football game, early voting. Chappell stated that he would like to go around and see where everyone stands on this issue. He added that this issue will definitely be part of their public forum. Chappell began, stating that he is not supportive of a change from 'qualified' to 'eligible.' Atkins stated that he is more inclined to make the change to 'eligible.' Vanderhoef agreed with Chappell, that there should be no change. Schantz stated that he agrees with Atkins that a change should be made, and that he also believes the number of signatures should be raised a small amount. Sullivan stated that he agrees with Schantz and would like to see a change made. Craig stated that a change and an increase in the number of signatures is appealing to her. Moyers -Stone stated that she is undecided at this point. She added that she came this morning believing she would not be supportive of a change, but after listening to the discussion this morning, she is now unsure. The act of registering to vote, she believes, goes both ways. Shaw, who arrived late to the Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 4 meeting, stated that he has no opinion at this point either. Chappell noted that at this point they have at least five Members supportive of a conditional change. Chappell stated that he believes after the public forum they should be able to tackle this issue more directly and make some decisions. Sullivan asked what number Chappell is considering for signatures. Chappell stated that he does not have anything specific in mind, that it sounds like most are agreeable to a small increase. Craig suggested they look at what the population was at the time the 2,500 was adopted and increase it by a corresponding percentage of how the population has increased. Chappell asked that staff look into this for them. b. Election of Mayor — Chappell asked Schantz to begin the conversation on this issue, as this will be his last meeting 'in person.' Schantz stated that his initial instinct was that they should have a separate election for the mayor. After doing some research, he noted that this same issue has been on the Charter Review agenda almost every time. There has been support for it here and there, but it has never prevailed. He shared some of the examples where there are different forms of management within a city, noting that here there is a council/manager system. He spoke about the Charter Commission guide and how it helped him to delve further into this issue. Speaking to the current system, Schantz noted that what people like most about the current government is that the council works well together most of the time and that it is a fairly civil process that occurs. On the other side of the argument, however, which Schantz stated he favors, says that if you have a direct election, it enhances the person's ability to lead the council into significant change. He added that other objections to this are that the person needs council experience. Schantz stated that he does not necessarily agree with this view and he gave some examples of where an elected mayor did not have previous council experience. He added that leadership ability would be more important in this case. Discussion began with Kubby asking Schantz if an elected mayor would have additional duties. Schantz stated not executive duties necessarily, but that he would have the mayor set the council agenda, something that he is shocked does not take place. Kubby also asked Schantz's view on the mayor's voting, if it would be only to break a tie or if they would still be a member of the council and be one of seven in terms of voting. He responded that this is not a big issue for him, that he would most likely see the mayor being a regular voting member. Chappell stated that the only real change being proposed is direct election and perhaps agenda setting as well. Schantz agreed, stating that it really would be only minor changes. He added that most cities the size of Iowa City do have an election for their mayor. Atkins spoke to the issues at hand, questioning the unintended consequence of such changes. He added that they should look at these carefully before making any recommendations. Kubby asked if Atkins had any examples of these unintended consequences. He replied that if the decision were made to have the mayor be the spokesperson for the city, then you have to find a way for it to work, as the mayor becomes independent of the rest of the council. Vanderhoef stated that it can also become a case of two individuals running for mayor and the election becoming about an issue instead of someone becoming the leader that is needed. Chappell stated that his concern about changing this is that it adds even more politics to the process. He likes the fact Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 5 that this group of elected councilors decides who among them will be the leader, that the mayor has no other powers, and that the term is only two years. Kubby stated that in her opinion who is mayor sets the tone for how conversations are going to happen, and how the community is welcomed or restricted, or both at the same time. She believes it makes a huge difference who the mayor is and the perceptions of people around this. Kubby stated that to her it is a fallacy to say that the selection process is people deciding who the best leader for the group is. She does not believe it is that clear, that it's more about who the lowest common denominator is sometimes, and that there are a lot of compromises involved. Kubby continued, stating that the mayor does have the potential to have power, even under the current system. They are the spokesperson, and their leadership skills are what sets the tone. Chappell asked if having an election will tell them how the person elected will perform in this role then. Kubby responded that she believes how someone is as a candidate is exactly how they are as an elected official. She questioned if the current system works the way that Chappell outlined. Sullivan stated that he came into this argument supporting changing to a directly elected mayor; however, now he is split on the issue. He stated that he agrees with Chappell on the current system being less political. Continuing, Sullivan stated that he also identifies with what Schantz and Kubby have said about there being a lot of value in having a mayor with the citizens' support and having a bit more power, such as setting the agenda. Kubby asked what is wrong with a political office being political, that she believes the word has taken on bad connotations over the years. Shaw stated that what he is hearing is leadership rather than the mayor being a one or two -issue mayor. He stated that he is interested in hearing what Schantz has to say about any specific leadership powers that were recommended in the Charter Review guide. Moyers -Stone stated that what she likes about the current system is that they are not led by one person, but by a council of seven. Chappell spoke to what could be an unintended consequence of having a directly elected mayor, noting that the remaining council members are somewhat muted. He gave some examples of how he believes this would happen, noting that he believes they would lose some of the richness of having diverse viewpoints of the councilors. Vanderhoef then spoke to her time on the council and how the mayoral seat was viewed. Atkins spoke to unintended consequences, noting that it can be as trivial as where are we going to put the office for the mayor. Although it may sound silly, he noted, these are very relevant issues. Atkins noted that they can always list what they believe to be important as far as policy -related issues being under the mayor's discretion. He noted that Coralville, for example, has a separate mayor, and he does not get a vote, except to break a tie. He added that he would think the mayor should have a part in setting the agenda, as this can be a very powerful tool, but that not being able to have a vote is very concerning to him. Craig stated that she would like to stay with the current system of a selected mayor, but to give them power to set the agenda. Schantz stated that in the last few discussions of this issue it has been a 'zero sum game,' that you would be taking something away from the council and giving it to the mayor. He stated that he does not see it this way, and that in fact, he does not believe that is how it works. He questioned what the unintended consequences would truly be. Schantz also addressed the issue of 'politics' being involved, noting that politics Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 6 is part of it. Kubby stated that leadership is going to happen one way or the other, and if it is not happening from the seven councilors, then the city manager has to be that leader. She stated that she would rather have this be with an elected person, a stronger leader in her opinion. The discussion continued, with Chappell speaking to the issue of having the two best candidates running for mayor — one wins, but then you lose out on the leadership of the one who lost. With the current system, you can get both of those leaders on the council, and either one could be mayor. Shaw stated that he does not believe having a directly elected mayor will bring in politics that the city isn't already accustomed to. He stated that the mayor is only going to be as effective as the authority given to the position. Continuing, Shaw also spoke to the issue of leadership characteristics, asking how this leader should be guided. Chappell again stated that he is not convinced the change is worth making here. Craig stated that all of the councilors are directly elected by the community now, so therefore the one who becomes mayor was directly elected. She added that she would not want to see the other council members shrink back from leading if one of them becomes directly elected as mayor. Vanderhoef stated that she has heard of cities where it becomes a power struggle between the elected mayor and the city manager. She added that it is typically someone who is wanting more control and basically is attempting to get rid of the manager. Chappell asked again where people stand on this issue. Sullivan stated that he is 51 % to change to direct election. Vanderhoef stated that she is on the fence. Chappell stated that he remains unconvinced the change is worth making. Kubby is for elected mayor. Moyer -Stone stated she is for the current system. Craig agreed with no change, as did Atkins. Schantz stated that he is still the same. Shaw noted that he is unconvinced at this point, that he would like to hear more on the issue and to do some research on it. Kubby noted that something they have more consensus on though would be adding agenda making to the list of duties. Schantz noted that Members can read more about this issue in pages 9-11 of the commentary, in the back section of the National Civic League's guide. At this point Chappell noted that they need to move on. He stated that the next agenda will include discussion about the meeting of the Citizens Police Review Board, as well as some talk about use of the word `person,' and some other items as well. G. Update — Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board — none d. Use of word "person" — none e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) - none PUBLIC COMMENT: Martha Hempel noted she was present at a meeting about a month ago, and stated that she came intending to make specific comments, but when she arrived the group was discussing whether someone was registered to vote or not. She stated that she feels there are a few Members who need to consider their station in life, and she spoke of how upset she is by what Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 7 she has heard. She added that she was raised to vote, that she has always made it to the voting booth, but that people need to understand why someone is not registered to vote. Hampel continued about how poor some people are in the community, how some people are just getting by, and that their opinions on social and political matters should not be less significant because they cannot register to vote. She asked the group to not discount someone's signature on a petition, basically their opinion on something, just because they are not registered to vote. Hampel also spoke to the 'qualified' versus 'eligible' issue and the petition process. She noted how much work is involved in collecting just a single signature. She asked that the group consider the number of signatures required on a petition before they raise this number, and to not discount someone's opinion when it comes to community matters. A brief discussion ensued about the number of signatures collected versus the number needed. Members asked Hampel for her opinion on the process and whether being 'eligible' would be easier in collecting signatures. PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 P.M.) a. Format — Karr noted that they have a draft agenda prepared, and if Members are agreeable, they can move forward as presented. She added that first and foremost, they need to address the press release. In regards to the issue of initiative and referendum, she believes they need to add a paragraph to this with some questions, similar to the election of Mayor. The same is true for the issue of council compensation b. Televised — . The group also needs to decide if they want this forum televised live or whether they want it taped for rebroadcast only. Kubby stated that the format they are using makes it hard to do live. Others agreed. C. Publicity — Discussion ensued about having Chappell and Karr work on a more descriptive paragraph for the press release. Karr added that they can always add to this with a second release, but that with the upcoming holiday schedules, she believes it is important to get something out as soon as possible. They can always add something after the first of the year. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): December 23 — Chappell noted that Members should bring their calendars to this meeting so they can schedule their 2015 meetings. He noted that as they get closer to completing their work they may need to meet more often. Karr asked if there is a desire to have a second input session on their recommendations as well. Chappell stated that he believes this will be one of the final things they do. Sullivan asked how these recommendations will go to Council, and Dilkes outlined the procedure. Sullivan suggested they schedule a longer meeting after the public forum in order to dig into issues and possibly avoid more frequent meetings. January 6 January 7 (FORUM) (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2016) ADJOURNMENT: Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 A.M., seconded by Moyers -Stone. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 8 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM o O O O O O O O O O O . . . A w fJi o) O -4 00 00 to W to O O NAME EXP. O co W N v o N A N N I -s N I N w I O W I N W I W O I —* A I N W O N N A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 4/1/15 X X O/ X 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 X Chappell Karrie 411/15 X 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 X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ X X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1115 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 411/15 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 Kev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission December 9, 2014 Page 9 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 201412015 TERM o 0 NAME EXP. w m 3 4/1/15 X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X Chappell Karrie 4/1115 X Craig Karen 411/15 X Kubby Mark 4/1115 X Schantz Melvin 4/1/15 X Shaw Anna 411/15 X Moyers Stone Adam 4/1115 X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X Vanderhoef Kev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time