Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-6-2015 Charter Review Commission4 od Cfty Of THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 6, 2015 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 12/23/14 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF 4. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 PM) S. PUBLIC COMMENT 6. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified and in the Helling Conference Room of City Hall)) January 7 (FORUM 6:00 PM at the Public Library) January 13 January 27 February 10 February 24 March 10 March 24 [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] 7. ADJOURNMENT Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 23, 2014 — 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, 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, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Ito become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. He noted that Commission Member Schantz is joining them via conference telephone. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 12/09/14 — Chappell asked if there were any comments, concerns, or changes that need to be made to the minutes. Shaw noted that there is one change he would like to make last paragraph on page 3 and top of page 4, where it states: "Shaw... arrived late... has no opinion at this point either."; and requested the record show he was undecided at that point. Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Atkins seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Karr provide information regarding initiative and referendum required signatures and census numbers. Karr reported how the census figures would compare, if indeed it was solely based on census numbers. She shared census data provided by the Library, and then reported on the increase in signatures using the same percentage (.0533617%). 1970 population was 46,850; no fewer than 2,500 1980 population was 50,508; would have been no fewer than 2,695 1990 population was 59,735; would have been no fewer than 3,187 2000 population was 62,220; would have been no fewer than 3,320 2010 population was 67,862; would have been no fewer than 3,621 Kubby then stated that she had a question for the Commission. She noted that she will have a column coming out in the Press -Citizen on Saturday. In this column, she would like to write about the Commission's January 7 meeting, basically using the press release. Kubby's intention is not to give her opinions, but to say what the topics are and to perhaps give one sentence on two sides of each issue to try to encourage the public to attend. She asked if anyone had any concerns about her doing this. Several Members stated that they thought this would be a good idea. Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 2 Kubby then asked if she could get a copy of the Charter in a Word document, and stated she wanted to play with the document and that it would be easier to have a Word version to do this with. Karr will send to the Commission. Vanderhoef stated that she was looking at old minutes from the Charter Review Commission and noted that in 1984 a recommendation was made to Council to move the date of the Charter Review to one year following the census so that the numbers would be the most current. She noted that evidently Council did not wish to do this, and she stated that she believes it to still be a good idea just so they would have the most current census data to work with. Chappell asked that they add this topic to another agenda so that they can further discuss it. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Update — Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board — Chappell asked Karr when the CPRB meets next, and she responded that they do not meet again until February. She added that they have not yet had any discussion regarding Charter issues. Chappell continued, stating that they can wait until the CPRB has this discussion. Kubby asked if they need to make a request to be on the CPRB's agenda. Chappell responded he had already appeared at a Commission meeting. Karr stated that the CPRB is closely watching the Commission's work and monitoring the discussion. b. Use of the word `person' — Chappell spoke to Kubby's proposal regarding use of the word 'person.' He read the definition of 'person' aloud, noting that Kubby's proposal is that 'person' means 'an individual.' A new term would be 'other entity,' which would have the definition of 'a firm, partnership, corporation, company association, political party, committee or any other legal entity.' Chappell asked what Member's thoughts are on this proposal, and whether they want to make a change to the current definition. Sullivan stated that he is not strongly in favor of this change, nor is he opposed to it. He added that he does not believe there is a problem to be solved, but that he does understand the morale type of argument of it and would not be opposed if others feel strongly about this. Atkins then asked how they would be furthering the governing process by making these changes. Kubby responded that she does not believe it changes the process or what any person or entity's rights and responsibilities are, but that it clarifies this issue for the community, that it is more of a political piece than a process piece. Sullivan stated that they should give this consideration even though it is not a substantive change. Kubby noted that language indicates values. Shaw stated that he would support the change with some modification. In regards to the newly added 'other entity,' he would remove 'other' and have it just say 'entity.' Chappell asked Dilkes if she had any legal concerns with the proposed change. She responded that she has some concern about unintended consequences, but that at this point she is not sure what those might be. Moyers -Stone stated that she found their conversation regarding 'citizen' versus 'resident' to be more compelling than this. She believes that if they did make this change it would only make the Charter more 'wordy.' She questioned a person being an individual, Charier Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 3 asking if that means an individual human being, an individual resident of Iowa City. She believes that what they have now works and to make such changes would only create more questions. Kubby stated that there are only four or five sections where they would need to make this change, and Dilkes asked if they could look at these sections again. Kubby continued, further explaining where she is proposing they make this change and why. Chappell noted that Kubby originally identified the following sections as needing this change: 1.03, 6.01 6.02, and 7.01. Members then reviewed each of these. Ultimately there was not a majority of Members wanting to pursue this change. C. Section 4.02, Accountability and Removal — Chappell then moved the discussion to Section 4.02, noting that this is one of the sections they left undecided after their initial review. He spoke to the issue, noting that they did find out that the city manager has a contract that spells out much of this, such as being entitled to three to six months of salary if terminated. Chappell noted that he does not have any strong feelings toward changing this. He added that he would not want the Charter to make this amount any higher than two months salary, but that the Council can do what it wants in this matter. Shaw stated that he would propose that the phrase 'not less than two month's salary' be changed to 'termination pay as stated in the city manager's contract,' or something similar to this. He further explained why he is suggesting this, noting that basically this is paying someone to leave. Others disagreed, stating that they believe this sentence is not necessary and should be removed. Chappell asked if this was put in the Charter due to a time when written contracts were less likely to come into play. Reviewing the proposal, Chappell noted that it would read: a) The city manager is under the direction and supervision of the council and holds office at its pleasure. The rest of Section 'a' would then be deleted. He asked how Members felt about this proposed change. Dilkes reviewed some of the history, noting that there was the desire to provide a minimum amount of protection in order to get qualified city managers, but that she does not have any major concerns with this. She gave some examples of arguments that could be used, however, if the 'contract' portion were removed. Kubby suggested having a sentence that refers to there being a contract, and Chappell suggested a phrase be added to the first sentence: "...consistent with any contract...... Discussion continued regarding whether or not to have 'contract' in the first sentence. Dilkes agreed that Chappell's suggestion of adding something to the first sentence, which would contain the reference to there being a contract, would probably be the best way to go here. Members continued with whether or not to add wording regarding a `contract' or'employment agreement' to this sentence. Chappell reviewed the wording for the second sentence: A city manager removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay consistent with any employment agreement between the city manager and council. He asked if this covers the sentiment of the change they have been trying to make. Dilkes Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 4 suggested it read 'as provided by contract' instead, and she re -read the sentence: A city manager removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay as provided by contract. Schantz suggested they add 'if any' to the end of the sentence. He further explained his feelings on this matter, noting that he believes they do not want to give the Charter too much power in this regard. Chappell asked if others would like to add 'if any' to this second sentence. Kubby stated that she does not believe it to be necessary, as contracts will typically always have a termination pay clause in them and others agreed. Members then agreed to the discussed changes in Section 4.02. d. Article 6, Campaign Contributions and Expenditures — Chappell moved to Article 6 next, noting that they have not tentatively approved any of this section. Dilkes noted that there is one minor change in Section 6.03 — the chapter is now 68A instead of 56. Moyers -Stone asked if there are any State rules regarding campaign contributions. Dilkes responded that there are none regarding amounts, but that there are a lot of requirements regarding disclosure. Chappell asked if there were any proposed changes for 6.01, 6.02, or 6.03, other than the chapter number that Dilkes referred to. Members agreed to tentatively approve Article 6 as discussed. e. Section 7.03(c), Petitions, Affidavit of Circulator— Moving on, Chappell noted that they tentatively approved some parts of Section 7, but that others are waiting for the decision on 'qualified' versus 'eligible.' Looking at 7.03(a), Chappell stated that they may want to have this discussion after their public forum. On (c), the only possible change would be replacing 'a qualified' with 'an eligible.' Members agreed to tentatively approve this section. Section 7.07, Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or Req. — Chappell noted that they had quite a bit of discussion previously about whether this section should change or remain the same. He asked Dilkes if she had any further thoughts on this section. She responded that she had a note that they were considering eliminating 'which are higher or more stringent than' and change it to 'that are.' Others spoke to what their notes on this topic were and what they remember the changes to be. Chappell noted that it would read as follows: 'The council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum, which are inconsistent with those imposed by this Charter.' Kubby stated that keeping the second part of the sentence allows council, by ordinance, to make clarifications and small changes. Without this sentence, she noted that they would not be able to do this without a Charter amendment. Dilkes spoke to this section, stating that it would actually be best to end the sentence after the word 'referendum.' She noted why she suggests this, noting that it really is not necessary to have this here. Atkins noted that he is looking at the word 'may,' wondering if that shouldn't be changed to 'shall.' After further discussion, it was decided to put a period after 'referendum' and to change 'may' to 'shall.' Members then tentatively approved this section. g. Section 8.02, Charter Review Commission — Chappell stated that they have not yet touched this section. Sullivan spoke to the timing of this Commission, Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 5 noting that the next one would either have to be three or four years too early, or four or five years too late. Chappell stated that he believes they have better information each year on population. Karr agreed, stating that they can gather data in a more current manner now. Members continued to speak to population numbers. Sullivan stated that the times they need actual up-to-date, valid census data is pretty small. He questioned if there are really that many scenarios where they would need to rely on up-to-date population numbers. Members continued to discuss this issue and whether changing the Charter Review timeline would be helpful or not. Karr stated that with the present language it says 'at least once every 10 years.' She noted that if the population were to spike, the council could at any point in time call for this review to take place. Atkins noted that census information is very important to the city administration as it affects eligibilities, for example. After further discussion, Members agreed to tentatively approve this section of the Charter. h. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) — PUBLIC COMMENT: None. PUBLIC FORUM (January 7. Iowa City Public Librarv. 6:00 P.M. Chappell stated that they are close to having tentative approval on everything but those topics being discussed at the January 7 forum. This should help them narrow their work significantly after the forum. He added that if anyone has something they would like to add to the public forum agenda, to send him an email regarding this. The Commission will plan to review the forum and how they plan to proceed with it while at the January 6 meeting. Dilkes noted that after the forum Members will receive a new red -lined version of the Charter that they can use in their review. Karr asked if any supplies would be needed for the public forum, such as flip charts. Members briefly discussed this and the use of them in these small settings. Atkins asked how they will be expected to participate in this forum, and if they are speaking as Commission Members or individuals. Chappell further explained what he sees their roles as, which is to try to get the public to give their opinions on these specific issues. Kubby gave some examples of how they can try to get people to open up more and give their opinions. Shaw spoke to the need for them as facilitators in getting the discussion going, but added that he does not see a lot of back -and -forth taking place. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7.45 AM unless specified): Chappell asked if the meeting time still works for everyone. He stated that he would like to plan on having the same Tuesday morning meetings through March, at which point they can decide how to proceed. He added that he believes after the public forum, their work will become more narrowed and they will have less issues to discuss. January 6 — to discuss forum agenda January 7 (FORUM) (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 6 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM o 0 0 0 o O o o O o O . . NAME EXP. o W -4 o A N N O O W O P o O cn A ? P. IN A A A A A A 0. 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 411116 X 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 X Craig Karen 4/1/15 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 411115 X 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 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 Charter Review Commission December 23, 2014 Page 7 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 2014/2016 TERM o 0 NAME EXP. o o c\ N w o 0 ` j 3 s 3 411/15 X X Steve Atkins Andy 411/15 X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 X X Kubby Mark 411115 X X Schantz Melvin 411/15 X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X Moyers Stone Adam 4/1115 X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X Vanderhoef Kev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time r �"^m CITY OF IOWA CITY �t� N Date: December 31, 2014 To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Community Forum on January 7 Attached are materials for discussion at your meeting on Tuesday, January 6, regarding the upcoming forum. ® Copies of press releases of December 15 and 29 ® Copy of memo from CRC Member Kubby re community process ® Draft agenda for January 7 Copy of suggested timeline from 2004 and Facilitator Tips ® Copy of Pros and Cons from December 2004 Marian Karr From: City of Iowa City <webmaster@iowa-city.org> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 11:16 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: Comments sought on possible amendments to Iowa City's Charter Contact: Marian Karr Contact Phone: 319-356-5041 Comments sought on possible amendnaeni is to ]Iowa City's Charter Issued by: City Clerk Mailing List(s): Agendas - Boards, Cotmnissions & Committees - General City News Originally Pested 12/15/2014 11:1 7 AM The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Chatter, 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 Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015, at 6 p.m., in Room A of the Iowa City Public Library (123 S. Linn St.). In the first part of the meeting the specific issues to be discussed 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 a voting member of the Council, the official representative of the City, presiding officer of the Council, and its policy spokesperson. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain largely the same, should the Mayor instead be directly elected 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 there are three district Council Members and four at -large Council Members. In a primary election selecting District Council candidates, only voters from within that district participate. In the general election for those district seats all Iowa City voters may participate. Should the district Council Members be elected only by the voters within the applicable district? (3) Initiative/Referendum - requirement for qualified :versus eligible. The City Charter allows individuals to submit initiative and referendum petitions to the City Council. When presented to Council those petitions must either be adopted by Council or submitted to the voters for consideration. Currently individuals are required to be "qualified electors" (registered to voter) to sign such petitions. Should the Charter be amended to allow "eligible electors" (persons eligible to register to vote) to sign such petitions? (4) Council Compensation - Currently the Charter requires that Council set its compensation by ordinance, and the present annual salary for the Mayor is $8,070 and Council Members $7,072. Some have argued that this salary discourages some people from running for City Council. Should the Charter require a higher level of compensation for Council Members and the Mayor to better reflect the time required to serve in those positions? In the second part of the meeting the public may raise any other issues relevant to the Charter. The Charter Review Commission invites everyone to be a part of this public discussion. Additional nformation can be found on the City website at www.icgov.org/citycharter. View this article on the ICGov Web Site: http://www.ic og v.org_/apps/news/?newsfD=10184 This media release was sent to: marian-kaffQa iowa-citv.ore Do not reply directly to this c-mail! It is produced from a i automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you have a question or comment about this infomration, please contact the individual(s) listed in the release. • Unsubscribe or edit your subscription details. • Visit our mobs page for emnlosnent opportunities. • View more news from the City of Iowa Citv. Marian Karr From: City of Iowa City <webmaster@iowa-city.org> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 12:09 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: Reminder: Comments sought on possible amendments to Iowa City's Charter Contact: Marian Karr Contact Phone: 319-356-5041 Reminder: Comments sought on possiblle annenadments to Iowa City's Charter Issued by: City Clerk Mailing List(s): Agendas - Boards, Commissions & Committees - General City News Originally Pqsfed 12/29/2014 12 0 :52 PM 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 Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015, at 6 p.m., in Room A of the Iowa City Public Library (123 S. Linn St.). In the first part of the meeting the specific issues to be discussed 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 a voting member of the Council, the official representative of the City, presiding officer of the Council, and its policy spokesperson. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain largely the same, should the Mayor instead be directly elected 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 there are three district Council Members and four at -large Council Members. In a primary election selecting District Council candidates, only voters from within that district participate. In the general election for those district seats all Iowa City voters may participate. Should the district Council Members be elected only by the voters within the applicable district? (3) Initiative/Referendum - requirement for qualified versus eligible. The City Charter allows individuals to submit initiative and referendum petitions to the City Council. When presented to Council those petitions must either be adopted by Council or submitted to the voters for consideration. Currently individuals are required to be "qualified electors" (registered to voter) to sign such petitions. Should the Charter be amended to allow "eligible electors" (persons eligible to register to vote) to sign such petitions? (4) Council Compensation - Currently the Charter requires that Council set its compensation by ordinance, and the present annual salary for the Mayor is $8,070 and Council Members $7,072. Some have argued that this salary discourages some people from running for City Council. Should the Charter require a higher level of compensation for Council Members and the Mayor to better reflect the time required to serve in those positions? In the second part of the meeting the public may raise any other issues relevant to the Charter. The Charter Review Commission invites everyone to be a part of this public discussion. Additional nformation can be found on the City website at www.icgov,org/citycharter. View this article on the ICGov Web Site: http://www.ic og v.orgLapps/news/?iiewsID=l0206 This media release was sent to: marian-karrniowa-city org Do not reply direct!), to this a -nail! It is produced from an automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you have a question or continent about this infonnation, please contact the individual(s) listed in the release. • Unsubscribe or edit your subscription details. • Visit our iobs page for employment opportunities. • View more news from the City of Iowa City. A COMM UNITY CCOP PROCESS PROPOSAL FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Submitted by Karen Kubby Summary of proposal: 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 4 discussion 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 frill 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 feet about this change? I� 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, �. CFty of C /\C_ j I�-,VM 10A G*Il 111 AVI � , t C-:U :V111iNEVI C,01#111101IIr)11(0N G0011MlJNI u Y F0R<<JM 6:00 M1 V100 Wil A, 110YVA G�I'Y P111 [3 LAC; H B[1�ZARY ITEM NO. 1 OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR, ITEM NO. 2 INTRODUCTION O COMMISSION MEMBERS BREAK INTO SMALL GROUPS ITEM NO. 3 ,OUT ITEM NO. 4 REPORTS-�OF SMALL GROUPS ITEM NO. 5 OPEN DISCUSSION OF CHARTER ITEM NO. 6 UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE QJanuary 13 o January 27 o February 10 • February 24 • March 10 • March 24 [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] ITEM NO. 7 ADJOURNMENT Suggested Tintefivune far December X, 2004 Public Discussion 5:30pni 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 6:15pni 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 I . 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" of 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 Cogs of Mrrjor 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. f 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 all 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 I. 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 daring the primary. 3. Consistent with other charter communities. True Districts Pro I. 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. District reps might work hardest on Issues effecting their district and not have the interests of the entire city in mind when making policy.