HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-13-2015 Charter Review CommissionCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, January 13, 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 1/6/15 and 1/17/15
b. Email from Bob Elliott
3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF
4. REVIEW CHARTER AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND PUBLIC FORUM
a. Election of Mayor
b. District Representation
c. Initiative and Referendum
d. Council Compensation
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
6. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM
7. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE - (7:45 AM unless specified)
• January 27
• February 10
• February 24
• March 3
• March 10
• March 24
[Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015]
8. ADJOURNMENT
Marian Karr
From: Bob Elliott <elliottb53@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 3:49 PM
To: City Charter
Subject: Charter observations
To: Charter Review Commission members
From: Bob Elliott
Date: January 9, 2015
RE: Possible City Charter changes
Thank you for holding the special community discussion session this past week. I found the small group discussions
informative, although it was disappointing to learn the reasons some persons expressed for favoring one or more of the
possible charter changes.
Personally, I strongly favor the City Charter as it now stands. My opinions and beliefs for opposing the four possible
changes are as follows:
Election of Mayor -- Our city manager -council form of governance with non -partisan council elections has worked
splendidly since being instituted several decades ago. Having the mayor selected by the council, rather than elected by
the public has worked well and enhanced eliminating "politics as usual" from council discussions. No council member
should be elected without clearly articulating his or her priorities, preferences, and anticipated expectations. That's not
something that would pertain only to a mayoral candidate.
District Representation -- District only voting for primaries and all voters in general elections
appears complex, but when evaluated, it assures district -wide representation, without promoting provincialism on the
council. Whether district or at large, the primary concern of every council member must be what's best for all of Iowa
City. Having 4 districts and 3 at -large seats might improve district representation, but it would make recruiting viable
district candidates even more difficult.
Initiative/Referendum -- For me, this is virtually a non-brainer. All citizens have access to addressing the council at
nearly all meetings, as well as numerous other means of expressing their suggestions/concerns about city
government. But if someone doesn't care enough to even register to vote, he or she should not be able to sign a petition
representing a requirement for either council approval or public referendum vote. Voting, I believe, is a responsibility as
well as a freedom and right. In response to some arguments that registering is a low priority, I say, You forgot? You
didn't have time? etc., etc., etc. If you move into the city or change address within the city, in addition to notifying utilities,
post office, city services, family and friends, it should be no less important to register to vote.
Council Compensation -- Citizen legislators is a primary concept of our form of representative democracy. Serving on
city council should never be considered a part-time or full-time job. Certainly never a career. We've seen the serious
problems resulting from that at the national level in Congress, and to some extent locally for county board
government. Rarely do Iowa City's regular or special council meetings conflict with normal work hours, although some
work hours -- such as night shift or swing shifts -- would probably make it impossible to serve on council, no matter what
the compensation. Between $100 to $150 a week is completely sufficient as "thank you compensation" for the time,
effort, and privilege of serving on the council. Reality reveals that a person popular enough to be elected, surely has
family and/or friends accessible to assist with the few times when needed to compensate for child care or extra work
hours.
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 6, 2015 — 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 (arrived 7:47), Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam
Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 12/23/14 —
Vanderhoef moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Kubby seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-0, Shaw absent.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
None.
DISCUSSION OF THE PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 P.M.)
Chappell stated that they need to discuss a few items prior to tomorrow's forum. He suggested
the Commission break into four groups with two Members in each group. This way there is a
Commission Member to guide the discussion and another to take notes during the discussion.
Chappell then spoke to the amount of time spent on each topic, stating that previously (10 years
ago) they did 25 minutes per topic, with four distinct topics. He added that this seems excessive
to him. He would like to plan for 20 minutes per topic and asked what the other Members would
like to do. Vanderhoef asked how well the conversation went during the 25-minute period last
time and if it tapered off quickly. Chappell stated that he really does not remember too well how
it went, but that the discussion was good and those in attendance appeared to be very
appreciative of being able to offer their opinions. Kubby stated that 20 minutes should be
sufficient and others agreed.
Chappell then spoke to the introduction time, noting that he does not see this taking 15 minutes.
He would like to do a brief introduction as to where the Commission is in the process, what they
have done so far, and where they are headed, and then do an introduction of the first topic.
Kubby stated that it would probably be a good idea to introduce the process once they break
into small groups. Chappell then asked Members how long overall they would like this forum to
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 2
be. With the specific topics they have in mind, they would use up an hour and a half with 20
minutes per topic. Kubby stated that she believes 8:00 P.M. would give them plenty of time and
others agreed. Kubby added that it would be helpful if someone could come around to the
groups when they have approximately five minutes left and let them know that their time is
almost up. She stated that it can be hard to keep track of time when involved in these
discussions. Sullivan stated that he hates to give a set end time, especially if someone comes
to the forum wanting to share their thoughts and things become rushed. Kubby stated that they
could advertise 8:00 P.M. as the end time, but if discussion is still ongoing, they can always
stay. Karr asked if Members want a timeframe for comments put on the meeting agenda.
Chappell and others stated that most people come with the knowledge of having five minutes to
speak.
Dilkes stated that if there is not going to be an actual end time, they really should not put this on
their agenda. She suggested they not put anything if they are going to leave it open to continue.
Members continued to discuss this issue, with Karr noting that if they put 8:00 P.M. and no one
comes after 7:30, they do have to stay until 8:00. Chappell suggested wording to the effect of
'up until 8:00' or something similar. Kubby suggested they state this in the introductory remarks
that they hope to end around 8:00 P.M. After further discussion, Members agreed that there
would be no set ending time and no notation on length of comments on the agenda. Chappell
concluded that Members should be the ones reporting out at the end on each topic.
Chappell then spoke to the 'facilitator tips' that Members received, asking Members if they have
any questions regarding these. He reviewed how they can keep people focused on the specific
topic. There was agreement to have copies of the Charter and press release available for
people to review during the forum. Karr stated that one issue that came up last time was people
wanting to speak on one topic in particular and not being able to stay for the entire session.
She asked if Members are willing to deviate somewhat for this type of situation. Chappell stated
that he is sure Members can work with individuals should this arise.
Shaw asked how they plan to break into pairs for the forum as they have an odd number of
Members. Chappell responded that Schantz will not be able to attend, leaving them with an
even number of Members. He then suggested the pairings of Kubby and Atkins, Moyers -Stone
and Shaw, Sullivan and Vanderhoef, and Craig and Chappell. Chappell added that Members
can decide themselves who will facilitate and who will take notes. He suggested that topics be
introduced, comments then heard, and that then Members try to challenge people's reactions to
see if they can see any downside to possible amendments. Atkins asked if they would be
pushing negative aspects by doing this early on. Chappell stated that his sense is they are just
asking people if they see any, that they are not introducing them into the discussion necessarily.
Shaw asked if their notes from the forum will be typed prior to their next meeting, and Karr
stated that these notes will be typed and become part of the minutes.
Sullivan asked if there will be nametags available. Karr stated that they can have these pre -
made for Commission Members. She asked if they also want temporary ones for the public to
use and Members stated that they would like to have these. Members continued to discuss how
best to take notes during the forum, with Chappell stating that his general sense is that they do
not need to single out people by name for reporting purposes; as much as needing to get the
ideas down that come out of their group.
Members continued to talk about the forum. Questions were also asked about how the
reporting -out process is expected to go. Discussion was also held on room set-up and how this
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 3
is expected to be handled. Members then spoke to group formation and how they want to
handle this aspect. This led to a brief discussion of the availability of tables, and whether they
would be round or rectangular. Karr stated that one issue that may come up is 'what's next' for
the group. She asked if the group is agreeable to the meeting schedule that Chappell
suggested at the last meeting and if another forum is going to be held, adding that the public is
interested in what is happening next. Kubby noted that they had talked about having another
forum after they have a final draft to share.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7.45 AM unless specified):
Chappell spoke to the meeting schedule and the possibility of shooting for the redlined draft and
final public hearing at the end of February. He asked what schedules are like during the spring
break period, and several Members noted they would be absent. Chappell asked if February 17
or 24 would work for the next forum. Members will check their calendars and staff will check
room availability. Atkins will be gone for two weeks starting February 18. Chappell asked that
everyone check their calendars. He also suggested they add an extra meeting on March 3, in
addition to their March 10 and 24 meetings.
January 7 (FORUM)
January 13
January 27
February 10
February 24
March 3
March 10
March 24
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
January 6, 2015
Page 4
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
0
0
0
o
O
o
O
O
o
0
0
A
u,
w
of
w
�
o0
0o
cfl
co
en
o
o
a
a
NAME
EXP.
o
w
w
m
w
o
A
o0
0
cn
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Q
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
4/1115
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1115
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Kerrie
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
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
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
4/1115
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
January 6, 2015
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
TERM
o
0
a
NAME
EXP.
m
w
w
CD
4
.p
�
a
CA
w
01
o,
411/15
X
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
411/15
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
411115
X
X
X
Schantz
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
Moyers
Stone
Adam
411/15
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION — COMMUNITY FORUM
JANUARY 7, 2015 — 6:00 P.M.
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw,
Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Mark Schantz
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR:
Chair Chappell welcomed everyone to the second public forum on the decennial review of the
City Charter. Chappell invited everyone interested to attend the Commission's regular meeting
held at 7:45 AM twice on a month generally on Tuesdays. Information, including agendas and
minutes, can be found on the Iowa City website. Chappell stated the Commission members
were appointed by the City Council for a one year to review the City Charter and make
recommendations to the Council on any changes. The City Council may accept, reject, or send
the recommendations to the voters.
INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Commission Members introduced themselves.
BREAK OUT INTO SMALL GROUPS
Chappell reviewed the process the forum would take by stating the first part would be breaking
into four groups, with each groups discussing the four target topics (election of mayor; district
representation; initiative and referendum; Council compensation) identified. Each group would
contain two Commission members, one designated to be the recorder and would be reporting
back to the full group, and the second to serve more as a facilitator and keep the conversation
going. Chappell stated the Commission had not formed any recommendations and wanted to
hear more comments. Chappell concluded by saying each group would discuss each of the
four topics for 20 minutes; then the Commission would reconvene and each group "report out"
on each topic to the entire group.
At the conclusion of the reports the Commission would be available to hear from those present
in a more public hearing type of meeting, and anyone with anything to add to the reports and
wishing to discuss something new could do so. Chappell stated they hoped to conclude the
forum around 8:00 P.M.
[The Commission and those present broke into 4 groups]
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 2
REPORTS OF SMALL GROUPS:
Election of Mayor
Group 1
Chappell stated that overall there was a common theme of a desire for change in the City
Council. With respect to changing how the mayor is selected, he noted that there was a lot of
support for making this change. Comments included the feeling that the current system is elitist;
that there is too much in -fighting with the current selection process; that the process is cliquish;
as well as a desire for a stronger mayor. Chappell noted that participants felt that by directly
electing the mayor, it would help to create the perception of there being a better 'connection' to
the public. Other comments regarding direct election of the mayor included things like the
election for the mayor would be more issue -specific; it may help with voter apathy; and may also
be a balance of power for the City Manager. On the other side of this issue, however, Chappell
noted that some believe that making this change really won't help address the issues and
concerns being discussed.
Group 2
Kubby reported that there was an argument over the issue of selection of the mayor from the
seven elected councilors versus a directly elected mayor, and how there is more turnover of
mayor with the current system. With a directly elected mayor, it was noted that there could be
political entrenchment with the office. Kubby noted that the group then began talking about term
limits and that there was disagreement on this, if there is an elected mayor. The discussion in
this group also went to the issue of the Charter remaining the same, but that there be more
transparency in how the mayor is selected from amongst their peers. By putting something in
the Charter to this effect, the group felt it would make the process be more transparent.
Group 3
Sullivan reported that participants were on both sides of the issue, with some believing there is
no need to change the Charter. The comment was made that people may be more engaged
with an elected mayor. He also stated that in his group it was also felt that it is important for the
mayor to build consensus, therefore the council should select the mayor. Another comment
made was that only about 10% of the community actually elects the council members.
Group 4
Moyers -Stone reported her group presented the idea that having an elected mayor may spur
more voter turnout and to have more interest in the election. On the other side, the current
system means the mayor builds consensus among the council. Comments continued in this
group with the idea of having an election for the mayor, after the election for council members.
DISTRICT REPRESENTATION
Group 1
Chappell reported support for a change, noting that people might feel that their vote makes
more of a difference if they were voting for just their district representative. Also it would be less
confusing to explain to others how the system works here. Chappell stated that there was some
support for even more districts than are currently in place, and also the thought that having pure
districts might result in more issues being brought forward for discussion. On the other side of
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 3
this argument, there was the thought that this would not work if changes are made to the mayor
selection process.
Group 3
Sullivan shared his group's comments on the district issue, first being that the two best
candidates may live next door to each other and that there should be no point in eliminating
them for this reason. The confusion of the system was also noted. Another idea is to have all
of the public vote in the primaries so that things are consistent.
Group 4
Moyers -Stone stated that one of the downsides to the district issue is that a candidate may not
necessarily be tied to the district that they represent. Also noted was that the current system
works well. She stated that her group had some discussion about the districts and whether four
districts and three at -large would change the way people perceive the system.
Group 2
Kubby noted that having all the candidates be at -large, and the pros and cons of this type of
arrangement. She stated that the group felt that recruiting candidates was more important, and
not having geography be a restriction for recruiting candidates. On the downside though was
the idea that all of the candidates might come from one area of town, leaving others to feel they
are not represented very well. Kubby noted that some thought there should be more district
representation than at -large, and that some believe the current system dilutes district voices.
Initiative and Referendum
Group 3
Sullivan reported one point raised was that the Charter Preamble itself states that the Iowa City
government belongs to all its citizens, not just to registered voters. Another thought was that
those who are not currently registered are still paying local sales tax, property taxes, etc., in the
community yet can't sign petitions. The group also talked about being open to allowing eligible
electors to sign petitions, as long as the threshold for signatures is increased. Comments were
also made as to the amount of time the Clerk's office must spend comparing petition signatures
to voter registrations.
Group 2
Kubby stated that some felt very strongly that the least someone can do is register to vote in
order to sign a petition that compels the government to act. Others felt just as strongly that
anyone who is eligible to vote and could potentially register by the time of the election, should
be able to petition their government for legislative change or reversal of something that is
already on the books. She stated that as far as the number of signatures required, a few felt it
should not change.
Group 4
Moyers -Stone stated a similar concern about how you would certify each signature. She stated
that some felt the current system works well and is responsive. In favor of changing to 'eligible
electors,' was the idea that it allows people the chance to affect change in city government and
is a way to be heard. In regards to the number of signatures, this group did not come to a
consensus, but the topic was part of their discussion.
Charter Review Commission
January7, 2015
Page 4
Group 1
Chappell stated there was a lot of support for making the change, with some believing the
current system shows those who are engaged enough that they have registered to vote. Many
believed that there is too much staff time involved in the checking of signatures, and that there
are too many signatures rejected when they shouldn't be.
Council Compensation
Group 2
Kubby noted that her group was not interested in having a 'salary' for council members. Many
felt that compensation should be for community service and not a motivator to run for office.
Discussion also centered on how compensation might open up the demographic to a broader
spectrum of people being candidates for council. Kubby stated that current compensation for
councilors is not quite minimum wage, although it is not meant to be a living wage. She shared
that one of the group's suggestions was to bump up the compensation a little bit, and to keep
this as part of the Charter so the council itself does not have to deal with the matter.
Group 3
Sullivan stated that in his group some were receptive to raising the compensation, but that it
should not be done in the Charter. It was felt that this recommendation could be made outside
of the Charter recommendations. Other comments included how the School Board members
are not compensated, even though their responsibilities are equal to council members'. Another
sentiment was that the idea is to encourage public service, not public servitude.
Group 4
Moyers -Stone added that her group made a lot of the previous comments. She added that the
general feeling was that the current compensation is too low, but that it should not be raised to
the level of a full-time job.
Group 1
Chappell stated that his group had a lot of support for increasing the amount of compensation,
with the thought that more people could afford to run. There was also the thought that this
would give more varied participation from the community. He noted that some felt the councilor
positions should be at least half-time equivalent jobs, while others believe them to be full-time
positions. The question was also raised about how you would guarantee participation by
councilors if there was an increase in compensation, with the concern that the increase may not
bring about good changes.
Group 4 (continued)
Moyers -Stone added that in her group it was noted that if more compensation were given, the
money would have to come from somewhere, and the question then became where would this
come from.
Group 2 (continued)
Kubby stated that her group did not have specific concerns about this issue, as the amount is
not that much.
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 5
OPEN DISCUSSION OF CHARTER:
Chappell then opened up the discussion for further input from participants. He noted that the
Commission plans to have another public hearing once they have a redlined version of the
Charter available for review. This will then give the public a chance to react to the proposed
amendments to the Charter, before the Commission finalizes their report.
Gary Gusen noted that in his group there were two comments about the initiative and
referendum issue that were made. One was that there is a safe -guard against false signatures
to a petition, in that those people won't get to vote on the issue once it is brought to election.
The other point made referred to the requirements in the Charter for a petition and how they are
so much more restrictive and burdensome than the State requirements.
Chappell then reminded everyone present that there is an email address for the Charter Review
Commission should they want to submit their comments in that manner — citvcharter(iliowa-
citv.org.
Mike Carberry asked how the final recommendation process works, and whether these go
directly to the Council or whether some qualified electors need to work to put these changes on
the ballot. Chappell explained that once the Commission finalizes their report, they will make
their recommendations to the Council. The Council then has the choice of either adopting these
recommendations or putting them to a vote. Carberry then asked if the Council has to accept
the recommendations as a whole or if they can line -item veto some of it. Kubby explained that it
is not an all or nothing process, that Council can decide which to adopt and which to send to
ballot.
Caroline Dieterle read from her prepared statement, noting that one point she would like to
make is that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and that it is necessary for citizens to
occasionally question authority. She added that those who are elected are regular people just
like everyone else, and that sometimes the citizens have to lead so that the leaders will follow.
She gave the example of the red-light cameras. She noted that less than two years after this
effort, people are finding out that red-light cameras are nothing but a money -making scheme.
Sullivan moved to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef seconded the motion.
(Correspondence from: Jay Honohan; Tim Weitzel; David Clark; Vanessa Ryan; Caroline
Dieterle; Martha Hampel; Harry Olmstead) The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent.
Bob Welsh then spoke, thanking the Commission Members for their time and consideration.
Secondly, he asked that they consider what would most empower the citizens of Iowa City as
they go through their process. He stated that he believes this would bring about a vitality that is
needed.
Martha Hampel read from her prepared statement. In reference to Commission comments at
previous meetings, she stated that making the assumption that someone who is not registered
to vote does not read the paper or keep themselves informed is ridiculous. Hampel also spoke
to the process of checking petition signatures and how many end up being denied when
addresses don't match, for example. Hampel continued to read from her statement, noting
some of the comments made by a Commission Member at a recent meeting. She stated that
no one needs to be a registered voter to address the city council, nor to be a part of public
forums such as this one. She also reiterated what the Iowa Code is for signing a petition,
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 6
questioning why Iowa City's Charter holds this to a higher standard. Hempel asked that the
Commission consider removing the qualified elector requirement for those signing initiative and
referendum petitions.
Aleksey Gurtovoy stated that he spoke at the previous public forum on the issue of 'eligible'
versus 'qualified', and what the minimum number of signatures might be under this new
scenario. He added that he believes the 2,500 number is arbitrary to begin with and he gave
some examples of why he says this; he noted petitions that would change the City Code versus
those that would change the City Charter; explained how they have two petition processes
currently, with one conforming to the Iowa code. Petitions to change the City Code come under
Home Rule. He continued, giving some examples for the arguments being made.
Eli Shepherd stated that he just wanted to second some of the comments previously made, one
being that when the Commission is considering its recommendations that they consider what
would most empower the citizens of Iowa City. He also stated that he wanted to second what
Harry Olmstead emailed to the Commission, that there needs to be more community outreach
on this process as many people are unable to attend such public forums. Shepherd then stated
that in reference to council compensation, he would be in support of anything that would make
the positions more accessible to lower -income citizens.
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)
ADJOURNMENT:
Chappell adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M.
Charter Review Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
—*
A
N
Q
cn
Q
O)
O
M
V
Co
Co
O
f0
O
O
O
NAME
EXP,
O
W
V
O
N
A
N
N
N
N
O)
O
t0
N
W
W
O
—*
A
N
Co
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
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
411115
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
411/15
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
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
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
January 7, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
TERM
o
0
N`
NAME
EXP.
(A0)
`
v
i
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
411/15
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
O/
Schantz
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
411/15
X
X
X
X
Moyers
Stone
Adam
4/1115
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
411115
X
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Kev:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time