Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-7-2015 Charter Review Commission ForumP i �t 0— a ; p' mx 'a' Cr"ty of in kit, AGENDA CHARTER REVIEW•, • COMMUNITY• WEDNESDAY, JANUARY1 • 11 PM ROOM ••' . . CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY 123 S. Linn St. ITEM NO. 1 OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR ITEM NO. 2 INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS ITEM NO. 3 BREAK OUT INTO SMALL GROUPS ITEM NO. 4 REPORTS OF SMALL GROUPS ITEM NO. 5 OPEN DISCUSSION OF CHARTER • Accept correspondence ITEM NO. 6 UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE • January 13 • January 27 • February 10 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] ITEM NO. 7 ADJOURNMENT Marian Karr From: Jay Honohan <honohan@hebblaw.com> gent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:38 AM ro: City Charter Subject: comments To the Chair and members of the Charter Committee: 1. On the election of Mayor. I urge the Committee to recommend no change in the election of the Mayor. Iowa City is a Council Manager form of government. As such the chief administrative officer of the City is the City Manager. The manager is a professional and has experience and training. If the Mayor is elected by the voters at large what powers will the elected Mayor be given? Will this conflict with the job of the City Manager? Will this elected Mayor have veto power which the Mayor does not now have? My impression of the folks who are advocating electing the Mayor at large is that they are trying to weaken the Council Manager setup that we have in Iowa City. I urge the Committee to recommend that the present system be retained. 2. On the election by Districts or at large. I served on the original charter committee which established the current setup. In the beginning the idea of districts was proposed by William L. Meardon as a compromise solution for those individuals who felt that their section of the city was not getting its share of attention and the council was not responsive to them. The committee accepted this proposal. Since that time, I have not seen ,ny advantage to the present district system. It seems only to be a device where candidates choose district over at large in order to be elected. What is wrong with every candidate running at large in the primary and the general elections? In my opinion that makes each council member responsible to the entire community. This comment in no way is being critical of any council member elected by districts. Over the years for the most part Iowa City council members have done well. Let's elected all council members at large. 3. On compensation of the Council. This is a real question. I was a part time city attorney from 1963 to 1974. During most of that time council members received no compensation. The Mayor received a stipend of $100 a month for a while. With this background I am inclined to support at least no change in the present situation. I would be concerned about increasing the salary very much. I would not like to see people running for the council to receive a large salary. We need council members who are willing to volunteer their services for the benefit of the City. 4. On initiative and referendum. I support the current standards of initiative and referendum. Over the years they have been used well and as far as I can tell have not been abused. Thank you for taking the time to review my comments. Jay H. Honohan 1510 Somerset Ln .owa City,IA 5220 (319) 338-6990 Marian Karr From: Tim Weitzel <tweitzel.email@gmail.com> ,ent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:28 PM Co: City Charter Subject: Comments on Charter Review 1. Election of Mayor - In a weak mayor/city manager form of government, direct election of the mayor likely does not result in significantly greater accountability. Rather, the council as a whole should seek increased oversight, if that is the intent. That said, if a majority of residents simply want to directly elect their mayor, then that should be implemented. 2. District Representation - The purpose of having district representation is to help ensure an equal distribution of representation throughout the community. However, since all council members should consider themselves a representative of the people at large, that is to say, all residents, it seems better that all eligible voters should be able to vote for all candidates. 3. Initiative/Referendum - Allowing all eligible electors to sign a petition seems like a good way to streamline the petition verification process. 4. Council Compensation -I have more concerns about over incepting candidates to participate in council elections than under inventing. If pay becomes the sole objective, we will see more contentious election cycles. A modest increase may, however, be in order to help mitigate the notion that only those with sufficient independent income can afford to serve on the City Council. Additionally, I have the following comments: I have concerns about the definition of person in the Charter. Although potentially a legal expedient, it seems to confer the same rights and privileges to corporate and other entities as it does to actual resident citizens. Please examine the charter for the legal effects of this. The Police Citizens Review Board should have subpoena powers and be able to recommend actions to the City Council that are of consequence to the employees of the police department, including disciplinary action up to and including termination or other legal action as necessary and fitting to the findings of a review. That is all I have at this time, Sincerely, Tim Weitzel, resident. Marian Karr From: David Clark <dacicoph@aol.com> ient: Monday, January 05, 2015 8:15 AM To: City Charter Subject: charter changes) I think that the mayoral question could be answered by term limits. (the council should not become more political & kept to the lower level of true community volunteers & not become advocates of the city staff) District representative should be elected by voters of their own districts. Dave Clark David Clark dacicophna.aol.com Marian Karr 'rom: Marian Karr Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 7:58 AM To: 'Vanessa Ryan' Cc: City Charter; Council Subject: RE: Council Participation in Charter Review? Thank you for your email. A copy will be provided to both the Charter Review Commission and the City Council at their next meeting. The Charter Review Commission will provide their recommendations to the City Council prior to April 1. You may wish to subscribe to receive their agendas and meeting materials, including minutes, by using the link below. http://www.lowa-city-orglicgovlapps/subscribe/ Please let me know if you have additional questions. Marian K. Karr, MMC City Clerk From: Vanessa Ryan[mailto:vanessa.ryan91@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 10:34 AM To: Council Cc: City Charter Subject: Council Participation in Charter Review? Dear Council & Charter Review Members: I am a newcomer to this community, and read in the newspaper a while ago that you are reviewing the city s charter. I am familiar with this process having lived in Tacoma, WA. It is a very high profile process there, with online surveys, online city halls, direct mail flyers, etc., with buy -in and active participation from many community groups. I recall talking to volunteers staffing info booths at the farmers market and they also had outreach sessions throughout the community seeking input. I'm not sure if this is an appropriate time to offer input but decided to go ahead anyway. I could not find any information on the home page of the city website about charter review; however, if the process is still ongoing I offer the following: I was a bit surprised to see that I have heard of no suggestions for improvement and efficiencies submitted by city staff or the city council itself to modernize its own administrative operations. This is a standard part of Charter Review in Tacoma. It is difficult to believe that after the course of perhaps 60 years or so there are no suggestions internally for streamlining the part of the city organization controlled by the city council, with possible coordination and cost-effectiveness benefits. After all, in those days there were no internet, computer networks, or other enhanced communication strategies we enjoy today. Most organizations today reflect today's environment, not those of mid-20`" century. There is also more concern for reducing the taxpayer burden than there appeared to be in the past. specifically, I see that the city council, presently all part-time, has 3 employees to manage, supervise and review, These would be the City Administrator, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk. I understand the current City Administrator has done an excellent job modernizing the organizational chart, and merging smaller departments together to increase coordination and to decrease administrative overhead costs. This I imagine has served to reduce the number of information "silos" and has benefitted the organization in many ways. In Tacoma, the City Attorney and the City Clerk's functions are joined together, with the City Attorney ultimately supervising the Legal and City Clerk operations. They were in physical different offices I believe, but organizationally they were joined together with one department head, the City Attorney. This organization model offers the city council the same level of "check and a balance" to the role of the City Administrator/Manager. The City Attorney would remain as the counter -balance to the role of the City Administrator. The City Clerk remains responsible for administrative duties, under the supervision of the City Attorney. Perhaps the City Clerk had a larger independent political role in the 1960s which would require the position to be accountable only to the City Council, but I'm wondering why that may still apply today. If so, I would like an explanation of that. Without charter changes, it appears the part of the organization (Attorney/City Clerk) controlled by the city council appear to be immune and protected from any reorganization iinitiatives to achieve both cost savings and organizational coordination benefits that have occurred in the rest of the organization. Since it can be considered only every ten years, I think now is a good time for the Council to consider its role and responsibilities in modernizing and streamlining its own administrative function. Thank you. Vanessa Ryan Iowa City I a` a` CBi7►�1►�1i.X9[il►l Marian Karr From: Harry Olmstead <Harry03@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 1:31 PM .'o: Marian Karr Subject: Public Meetings Iowa City Charter Review Commission: I want to encourage the commission to host public meetings throughout the city. It would be of benefit for the commission to contact various minority leaders to help promote your commission meetings and/or public forums especially in their areas of concern. If you need help identifying these community leaders, I'm certain Stefanie Bowers of the Iowa City Human Rights Commission can assist you. Sincerely, Harry Olmstead City Charter Commission of Iowa City January 7, 2015 To the Members of the Charter Commission: I earlier have sent you some of my thoughts regarding the Initiative & Referendum section of the City Charter via e-mail letter and have also appeared at Commission meetings to speak to you in person regarding the need for the removal of the "Qualified" elector provision in the Charter. I will not repeat my earlier points, but add the following ones. A remark was made during a Commission meeting to the effect that citizens who don't make sure that their voter registrations are valid and up to date are persons who are too generally lackadaisical and uninformed to be allowed to sign I&R petitions; those remarks were offensive and elitist, as well as simply ignorant. With current, modern voting laws in Iowa, people can register at any time right through election day and can update their voter residence addresses at the polls. Their signatures should not be thrown out. A second very objectionable opinion expressed by a Commission member was that people elect representatives to office and should simply trust them to make the best decisions for everyone. This is also elitist as well as showing a shocking lack of awareness of the flaws, foibles, and even dishonesty of public officials nationally we are seeing almost daily in the news. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance", and citizens should indeed question authority when they believe the wrong course is being chosen. The red light camera I&R petition is an excellent example of the "people must lead so the leaders will follow". Less than 2 years after local bipartisan activists filed the I&R petition to restrict red cameras in Iowa City — and the City Council vowed to revisit the issue in 2 years! — it's now apparent from investigative news reports that the activists were right: the red light cameras are indeed not only a violation of our civil right to due process as the ACLU asserted, but also simply a money making scheme in which local government and the red light camera companies, from which cameras are leased, split the swag which is fleeced from the long suffering citizenry. A third offensive opinion expressed by a Commission member was reluctance to facilitate citizens' petitions that force the City Council to `do something'. Forcing the Council to vote in the change asked by the petition or to put the issue on the next regular City ballot is not asking extraordinary action by the Council. Would anyone waste 5 minutes on the street even on a fair weather day collecting signatures on a petition that the Council could simply read, file, and ignore? Please — words fail me. Finally, all adult citizens of Iowa City are subject to the same City ordinances and all pay Iowa City taxes — either as home owners or renters. All citizens of Iowa City who are legally able to register to vote should be able to petition the City via I&R, no questions asked. Caroline Dieterle 727 Walnut St. Iowa City 219-338-8674 Iowa City Charter Review Commission, At a Charter Review Commission meeting in December it was suggested by one commission member that the "qualified elector" requirement in the City Charter not be removed. The member's reasoning was that, "...The ones who do not care enough to register are the ones who don't necessarily read the paper, read the information, know how to make an informed vote. If you aren't informed enough to say I want to be registered and participate I think this is wrong to change it." This statement makes all kinds of assumptions about people who are registered to vote, those who are not, and those who have signed Initiative and Referendum petitions. Assuming that a person who is not registered to vote does not read the paper or read information or does not know how to make an informed vote is ridiculous. Not even in a general sense is this accurate. There are many highly educated people who simply choose not to be registered to vote. They feel passionate about many issues, they donate to charities, they volunteer, they are homeowners, they own businesses, they pay taxes and support our community. But what's more troubling about this commission member's argument is that it assumes a person whose signature has been struck from a petition was not registered to vote. When I circulated an initiative petition here in Iowa City I made sure that every person signing my petition knew they were an Iowa City resident and registered to vote. But when our signatures were counted many were thrown out by the city clerk's office. Most often the name did not match the address provided. It is not a standard practice for folks to re -register to vote after they move. Usually a person simply waits until the next election and registers when they vote. This is very common in Iowa City. So, it doesn't mean that person isn't registered, it just means they weren't registered at their current address. And while they are a regular voter, their opinion and desire for change in city government has been completely disregarded. Now it is true that the city clerk could verify a signature regardless of the address if the signer would include their birthdate on the petition. However, many people are unwilling to supply their birth date after they have already given their full name and address. People are often suspicious of such a request. At that same December meeting another commission member claimed that bringing an initiative or referendum before the City Council was essentially forcing the adoption of that Initiative or Referendum. But when reminded that the City Council can indeed deny an Initiative or Referendum and it would simply go on the ballot for the next city election, that member replied "But an election comes only if the people that we've elected in our representative democracy, only if those people determine this is a bad idea.", suggesting that the citizens of Iowa City should not question decisions made by the City Council. I would like to remind everyone that there are many different ways to participate in the political process. Casting a ballot, especially for a candidate, is probably the least effective way to create change in government, the economy, or in social issues. It is in holding our elected officials accountable that we create change. We do not need to be registered to write a letter to the paper. We do not need to be registered to attend and make comments at a city council meeting, a county board of supervisors meeting, or any other publicly held governmental meeting. We do not need to be registered to call, write or email any of our representatives at any level of government to air a grievance. None of us here in this room need to be registered to participate in this public forum or to suggest changes to the Charter that governs our city. But most importantly, according to the Iowa Code, we do not need to be registered to vote to sign an Initiative or Referendum petition! We need only be eligible to register to vote, to cast a ballot. But here in Iowa City, under a Charter that is supposedly meant to give citizens more control over their local government, We need to be registered to hold our City Council accountable for their actions or inaction, or failed campaign promises?! We need to be registered to hold them accountable for their lack of knowledge of new or trending issues when they simply adopt a new ordinance based on the biased opinion or recommendation of the City Manager who many would argue holds more power than the members of the City Council hold?! I have heard a lot of talk about getting folks registered to vote but not enough discussion about eliminating an undue burden on petitioners who are simply trying to put issues on the ballot which would give folks a reason to vote! There is a major disconnect here. Especially when you consider that the number one thing that gets folks who don't normally vote to cast a ballot are issues and NOT candidates. Again, I ask that the Charter Review Commission remove the "qualified elector" requirement for persons signing Initiative and Referendum petitions from Iowa City's City Charter. Thank you, Martha Hampel Iowa City 319-471-7319 Sigrn "* I Sheet Charter Review Commissilon C ®rcnrraloWRY January `/, 2015, NAME L tV 0. rY i e- CY'o.dq 2.y C�l�ppl 3.Q (10. �Ax11 I115 4. 13/, Gy� IsG 5. C' A R6 L ETCa LE-. 6. 9. ]ill Bukler 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. Foal laa 6:00 P.M. ADDRESS / ZIP aS3 2r1i via Pa. j m 7a7 WALNOT sr /. e. �z74-6 �7, ?-? z r'a.,gA C--, —(�( 5 as y_C; �S_ oio c 4igi ic 52zga Sign in Sheet Charter Review Commission Community Forum January 7, 2015, 6:00 P.M. NAME ADDRESS / ZIP 2. E 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. L Sign in Sheet Charter Revilew Colunlrni,95' rn Corn rn ujai A y Fornial January 7, 2015, 6:00 P.M. NAME 1. � (� a ✓� � I a��eG 2. �v'ftN r�L�s 4. Jus�� s. )GM iC 2 6. N YAO-- d I /aJAA q A ny PZ4 w5 S s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. r ADDRESS / ZIP