Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-27-2015 Charter Review CommissionTHE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS M:Fil:A0=IAZI=W I=1►I►[d6]►4IIUI611[11]►I MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 27, 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 1/13/15 b. Correspondence from: 1. Dave Martin 2, Rita Bettis 3. Vanessa Ryan 4. Mary Murphy 5. Copy of Corridor Business Journal Editorial (Chappell) 6. Tom Carsner 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF a. Council Compensation - use of CPI language (Karr) b. Initiative and Referendum petition language from Clinton, IA (Karr) 4. REVIEW CHARTER a. Election of Mayor • Proposal (Schantz) • Proposal (Kubby) b. District Representation • Proposal (Kubby) c. Council Compensation • Proposal (Kubby) d. Initiative and Referendum • Proposal (Sullivan) e. Other parts of the Charter as time allows 5. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (SEE PAGE TWO) Charter Review Commission Agenda — January 27, 2015 Page 2 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM (tentatively set) • Harvat Hall - February 24 • Format, advertising, and televising 8. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE - (7:45 AM unless specified) • February 10 • February 24 (Public Forum) • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) 9. ADJOURNMENT Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 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, Adam Sullivan Members Absent: Anna Moyers -Stone, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dikes, Marian Karr 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 Meetings on 01/06/15 and 01/07/15 b. Email from Bob Elliott Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, Moyers -Stone and Vanderhoef absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Chappell noted that he met with the Sunrise Optimist Club that morning and gave them an overview of what the Commission is doing, and encouraged the group to weigh in. Kubby asked what type of questions the group had. Chappell noted that one point raised was in regards to the 'qualified' versus 'eligible' issue and whether you would lose the verification step in this process. Another comment was in regards to Council compensation and what might be recommended here. Chappell then stated that last Thursday he spoke to the Chamber's Local Government Committee, basically giving the same information, and discussing the process that the Charter Review Commission has been following. REVIEW CHARTER AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND PUBLIC FORUM: Chappell briefly discussed whether everyone wanted their notes from the forum typed up for distribution or if they felt the minutes captured everything okay. Sullivan, Shaw, and Atkins stated that they believe their notes were captured in the minutes. Karr stated that she can send the notes to Chappell for his review, and he could notify her if he felt the notes should be typed up and distributed. Chappell agreed that this would be a good idea. Reviewing what their group's input was. Chappell noted that his group was very consistent with wanting 'change.' Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 2 Council compensation, Chappell asked if this is still an issue and what the Members think about this. Sullivan stated that one comment he heard was that there is a feeling it should be increased, but that it should not be built into the Charter. One reason being that this is not the appropriate place, but the other is that this should not be an automatic mechanism, especially in lean budgetary times, when a council may wish to not make an increase here. He believes they should recommend to Council, outside of the Charter recommendations, that they look at this issue separately. Shaw stated that he is not certain that this Commission should suggest a particular salary or percentage of increase for the council. He added that he believes it is fine the way it is in the Charter now. Kubby stated that she heard people saying it should be increased. Shaw asked to what amount, that he has not yet heard a satisfactory formula for such an increase. He agreed that council is underpaid for all they do, but that he is not sure what amounts they should even consider. Kubby stated that by putting something in the Charter itself it would then be structural, which would not give council any flexibility. She believes that this is okay though. However, she does not believe that an actual number should be put in the Charter, that something either needs to be tied to the CPI or a percent of median income, so that it is a standard. Atkins stated that he is not comfortable with formulas that you put into something, such as the Charter. Kubby stated that if you were to put in a set amount, then it is stagnant for the next 10 years, until the Charter is reviewed again. Craig stated that she believes they should leave this as is in the Charter and then make a recommendation that a committee review this. She added that she heard several comments at the forum that the compensation should be increased, some to as much as $37,500 for a council member and $75,000 for the mayor. Sullivan stated that he believes Council needs to hear this from their constituents and he doubts they are. Shaw noted that under Section 2.06 it states that 'The council by ordinance shall prescribe the compensation for the mayor and other council members.' Therefore, he believes this addresses some of the issue of how often their compensation can be changed. Chappell then asked Schantz what his feelings are on this issue. Schantz stated that he believes it should be changed, that a recommendation would not address the basic problem — that the council is conflicted in the issue of increasing compensation. He believes it is time to come up with some language for the Charter that would address this. Sullivan asked for some clarification on how this process was handled in the past, with recommending language and substantive changes to the Charter. Chappell stated that ultimately if there is no consensus on a change, then it does not move forward. At this point he asked if others want to do something here, stating that he is not inclined to make a change in the Charter. He believes that the compensation is too low; however, he is unsure of how to reach a consensus on what they should do. He is less convinced that it should be this Commission making the change and deciding what the change should be. Craig noted that some in her group made the comment that even if there is an increase, what guarantees that something will change here. Chappell asked again if there is consensus to suggest a change. He noted that Kubby and Schantz both appear to feel strongly about this issue, and he suggested they write up a proposal prior to the next meeting. At that point they can find out what the absent Members think, as well as the rest of the Commission. Qualified versus eligible (signatures for initiative and referendum petitions) - Chappell stated his sense is that they have heard a lot of the same arguments regarding this matter. He has not changed his mind on the matter, and he asked where others stand. Previously there was a consensus to make the change from "qualified" to "eligible." Schantz stated that he is on the 'eligible' side. Sullivan stated that he is also interested in changing to 'eligible.' He noted that his group at the forum had a couple of people who were not aware of this issue, and both Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 3 agreed that 'eligible' made sense. He added that one participant was strongly in favor of 'qualified' and keeping that in place. This person did, however, agree that if the number of signatures on petitions were increased that they could agree to 'eligible,' as well. Shaw stated that he is leaning towards 'eligible' at this point, but that he could change this if the signature number were not increased. He added that he does not want the process to be so easy that people are bringing frivolous matters forward that could result in costly elections. Kubby questioned the actual numbers of initiative versus referendum petitions. Dilkes noted that this is a whole discussion in and of itself because it's actually fairly simple to craft something and frame it as an initiative or a referendum, depending on what suits your purposes. Chappell then asked Schantz if he supports bumping up the number of signatures required on petitions. Schantz stated that his first thought would be to leave it as is, but that he is flexible. Chappell then asked Atkins where he stands on the issue. Atkins replied that he is on the 'eligible' side, but that when it comes to changing the Charter itself, for example, it should be harder to do. He believes that since it is a policy of the City to encourage participation by the community members that 'eligible' makes more sense. Dilkes noted that it is not her sense that getting that number is the problem for people who want the change to "eligible" so much as not knowing how many you collect are going to be rejected. Karr noted that there is a second chance to get the required signatures, that the City gives people the chance to complete this process. Chappell asked if Atkins believes the number of signatures should be bumped up, and he agreed that it should, along with the change to 'eligible.' Craig stated that she too would agree to 'eligible' but that the number of signatures should be increased more than a little. She gave an example of times where making this process 'too easy' could cause some major issues for the community. Kubby stated that it really does take some effort to get even the 2,500 signatures, and she is for the change to 'eligible' but believes they should keep the number of signatures the same. Discussion continued, with Members talking about the possible unintended consequences of changes to this process. Shaw stated that he believes that changing it to 'eligible' and increasing the number of signatures provides a balance for those who put earnest effort in collecting signatures. He added that he does not believe it is anyone's intention to discourage anyone from doing this. The ease with which it could be done if changed to 'eligible,' however, makes him believe the number needs to increase. Shaw stated that as far as the number of signatures, something less than 5,000 would probably be a good idea. Sullivan stated that he believes it is a misplaced fear that under a different system they may have superfluous referenda. He stated that they have not seen this type of behavior yet, and he doubts that it would occur. Secondly, if someone wanted to do this now they could petition the City for Charter amendments. Dilkes noted that the Supreme Court has said it has to be a form of government amendment in order to amend the Charter, not just any legislative issue. Chappell stated that he is not too concerned that this would happen either. Shaw asked if a change to 'eligible' would affect at all City staff and the work that they do. Karr clarified the petition review process for candidates running for office, noting that will be handled by the County and not the City Clerk starting this year, versus the review of initiative and referendum petitions. Candidate papers were basically reviewed for an Iowa City address and a signature. The initiative and referendum review started with registered voter rolls. Karr questioned what Clinton's language is on this, as they are the only other city that does initiative and referendum here in Iowa. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Dilkes and Karr providing clarification as needed. Chappell summarized where they are with this issue, having six people who are supportive of a change. He proposed that prior to the next meeting he will look at what specific changes need Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 4 to be made with regard to swapping 'qualified' with 'eligible.' He will run this by Dilkes for review and have it available prior to the next meeting. He asked that Members come back with any proposals they may have as to the number of signatures. He noted that Kubby would like no change, as does Schantz. Sullivan, Shaw, Atkins, and Craig are for an increased number of signatures. District representation — Chappell noted that time was running out and asked if anyone has heard anything new on this issue. Sullivan stated that he heard the idea of keeping everything the same, except opening up the primaries to all voters. Atkins stated that he got the impression from his group that 'districts' were like 'wards' in that if you lived in the district, you ran in that district. Kubby added that some wanted to switch to a 4/3 mix, and as a group this Commission has not wanted to do that, that everyone wants to maintain a majority at -large. She stated that one suggestion was by someone from the Chamber, who suggested all seats be at -large for recruitment purposes, but that no one else agreed with this. Craig stated that a person in her group suggested up to 11 districts, all at -large. She added that some felt that having four districts would give more representation to different areas of the city. Karr reviewed the current process that takes place after each decennial census, noting districts are 'balanced' and regulated by the state. Kubby stated that she continues to want true districts, as long as they have four at -large. She believes that people will feel more represented by the district seats. She also spoke to the potential for campaigns being different, should different people run for seats in their district. Shaw noted that they have previously discussed the issue of going to all districts and how these could become little 'fiefdoms' or issue -oriented districts. He questioned if having this type of system would even be good for the city as a whole. Kubby responded that perhaps having districts would give more voice to some of these important issues, since council members would be more accountable to that geography. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Chappell stating that what he likes about the current system is that it is set up so that the districts pick their 'all-star,' who would be best to represent them. Kubby again stated that having it be a 4/3 split (district/at-large), she believes, gives more balance to the system. Chappell stated that he feels that he can go to any one of the council members and express his concerns, not just the councilor for his district. They all represent the city as a whole. He added that saying the current system is 'too hard to explain' is not reason enough to make this change. Kubby continued to speak to her reasons for making a change to pure districts. She stated that she believes some issues do not get the attention they deserve, and that such a change would help to deter this problem. Craig stated that you would hope anyone who is running would bring up such important issues and that they are looking out for the city as a whole, not just their' district. Members continued to share their opinions regarding a pure district setup. Chappell asked Schantz where he stands on this issue. He noted that he is really not sure at this point. Schantz added that he believes the compromise that was made to achieve the current system has worked pretty well. He is not in favor of having a completely at -large process, and that he is somewhat sensitive to the concerns of having 'ward -like' behavior if they move in that direction. However, he may be open to some changes to the current system, although he leans towards leaving it as is. Shaw asked if Kubby could put together a draft of what Section 2.01 would look like, and she was agreeable to do this. Atkins added that if they were to go with pure districts, there could be the chance of someone coming in with no competition. Members noted that this has occurred under the current Charter. Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 5 Election of Mayor— Schantz stated he will come up with a draft for the 'election of mayor' issue for Members to review. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM: Chappell then turned the discussion to the third public forum. He noted that their hope is to have the Charter review complete and a redline version available for review by that date. He suggested they pick February 24 as the public forum and others agreed. Atkins noted that he is unavailable that date. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specifiedl: Schantz noted that he has a conflict for the next meeting but stated he would provide information on 'election of mayor'. January 27 — meeting will run until 10:00 A.M. February 10 February 24 March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Atkins moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 7-0, Moyers -Stone and Vanderhoef absent. Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 6 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 s s NAME EXP. O coCDw N ZI N A N N r) c) co w o w o0 o in a A A -N A .a A a A ®s � . A A 4 -Pa A N A . A .a A D. a A 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X X X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 411115 X X X XF Chappell Karrie 411/15 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 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 411/15 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 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X Vanderhoef E Kew. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission January 13, 2015 Page 7 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 2014/2015 TERM o 0 0 0 NAME EXP. ® W N w O 0) O w N A P CJf N C7f to 411/15 X X X X X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X Craig Karen 411/15 X X X X X Kubby Mark 411/15 X X X O/ X O/ Schantz E E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X Shaw Anna 411/15 X X X X O/ Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X O Vanderhoef Key., X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Marian Karr From: dndmartin1@mchsi.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:33 PM to: City Charter Subject: comments on charter review 1. I do not support any change to the way we elect our mayor. It makes sense to me to have the elected councilors get together and reach a consensus as to who will serve as mayor. They have to work together and this seems to help make that happen. I worry a little about having an elected mayor with a city manager and how that would work. 2. 1 do not support any change in the way we elect district candidates. I like the fact that I can vote for anyone on the council once past the primary. They are making decisions that affect the entire city not just the district. 3. If you make a change to the rules for who gets to sign a petition and that increases the number of potential signers then it makes sense to increase the number of people it takes to move a petition forward. 4. I'm ok with increasing the salary of council members a little bit ( I do not have clue as to how much...) thanks for your work on this committee. Dave Martin 1614 Somerset Lane 319-351-7616 Marian Karr From: Rita Bettis <rita.bettis@aclu-ia.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 7:11 PM ro: City Charter; Council; Eleanor M. Dilkes Cc: Robert Givens Subject: Re: Recommendations for City Charter Review Commission Attachments: ACLU Response Re Iowa City Petition Power Exclusion.pdf Dear Council Members and Charter Review Commission, We were asked by some members of the Commission to make further comments regarding the current exclusion of eligible voters who are not already registered (denominated "qualified" by the Charter) from the petition process. Attached, please find those further comments, made on behalf of the ACLU of Iowa, including the Iowa City Hawkeye Chapter of the ACLU of Iowa. Hawkeye Chapter President Robert Givens is cc'ed. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or to discuss our recommendations further. Sincerely, 2ita Bettis Legal Director ACLU of Iowa 505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901 Des Moines, IA 50309-2316 (515)-243-3988 ext. 15 This email was sent by an attorney or her agent, is intended only for the addressee's use, and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email. Thank you for your cooperation. )n Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Rita Bettis <rita.bettis@aclu-ia.org-> wrote: Dear Council Members and Charter Review Commission, Attached, please find recommendations on behalf of the ACLU of Iowa, including the Iowa City Hawkeye Chapter of the ACLU of Iowa, pertaining to the provisions of the Iowa City Charter that govern initiative and referendum petitions. Hawkeye Chapter President Robert Givens is cc'ed. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or to discuss our recommendations further. Sincerely, Rita Bettis Legal Director ACLU of Iowa 505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901 Des Moines, IA 50309-2316 (515)-243-3988 ext. 15 0_. This email was sent by an attorney or her agent, is intended only for the addressee's use, and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email. Thank you for your cooperation. 505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901 Des Moines, IA 50309-2316 www.aclu-ia.org City Council Members and Charter Review Commission c/o Marian Karr, City Clerk City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 January 14, 2015 Delivered by email to: citycharler[a,iotva-ci �.oi council(@iowa-cit +poi- andEleanor- dilkes@ioit,a.cib,.org Re: Recommendations to Bring Iowa City Charter Provisions Regarding Petition Validity in Line with Statutory and Constitutional Requirements Dear Council Members and Charter Review Commission, This letter is written on behalf of the ACLU of Iowa, including the Hawkeye Chapter of the ACLU of Iowa in Iowa City. We are aware that during the Charter Commission meeting on Nov. 25, City Attorney Dilkes responded to the concerns regarding the city's petition process that we outlined in our Nov. 19 letter. Specifically, we understand it is the position of the City staff that Iowa City is not required to abide by Iowa Code § 362.4, "Petition of eligible electors," because Iowa City's petition process is authorized by the Iowa City Charter, rather than the City Code of Iowa. We respectfully disagree with that interpretation of state law. We believe that state law establishing the validity of petitions is equally applicable to petitions authorized by the City Charter as those authorized by the Iowa Code. However, even beyond the question of preemption, this Commission should extend the right of petition to all eligible voters, because of the clear discriminatory impact of excluding newcomers to the city who are more likely to be younger and more racially and socioeconomically diverse than the registered voter population. Both grounds are discussed in turn below. The Question of Preemption As stated at the Nov. 25 meeting, "City Code" as used in this section refers to the "City Code of Iowa." Iowa Code § 362.2 (2014). As Ms. Dilkes also said, "City Code of Iowa" refers to Iowa Code §§ 362, 364, 368, 372, 380, 384, 388 and 392 (including Iowa Code § 362.4, "Petition of eligible electors"). Iowa Code § 362.1 (2014). Iowa City is Jan. 13, 2014 organized under Iowa Code § 372, providing for a Home Rule Charter form of government, which is subject to the City Code of Iowa. Iowa Code § 362.4, "Petition of eligible electors," expressly states that all cities that authorize a petition of the voters by city code must treat as valid any petition signed by at least ten percent of eligible electors. Iowa Code Aim. § 362.4 (2014 West) (emphasis added). Iowa Code § 362.9 clearly states, "The provisions of this chapter [362] and chapters 364, 368, 372, 376, 380, 384, 388 and 392 are applicable to all cities." Iowa Code § 362.9 (2014) (emphasis added). Iowa City, as a municipal corporation, is a "city" under Iowa Code § 362.2 and thus subject to § 362.4 governing petition validity. Indeed, it is unclear what purpose Iowa Code § 362.4, "Petition of eligible electors," would serve if it is interpreted as suggested (i.e., that it only applies to petitions authorized by the City Code of Iowa, and not to petitions authorized by cities themselves). Such an interpretation nuns counter to the guiding principles of statutory interpretation articulated by the Iowa Supreme Court: "If the statutory language is plain and the meaning clear, we do not search for legislative intent beyond the express terms of the statute." We seek a "reasonable interpretation that will best effect the purpose of the statute and avoid an absurd result." State v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 744 N.W.2d 357, 360-61 (Iowa 2008) (citations omitted). The Iowa Supreme Court held in Berent v. Iowa City that "the legislature has established a substantive and procedural framework with respect to petitions that trigger municipal elections... In order to invoke the electoral process by petition, the legislature required the petition to "include the signatures of the petitioners, a statement of their place of residence, and the date on which they signed the petition." Id. § 362.4. The legislature has declared that a petition is `valid" if it is "signed by eligible electors of the city equal in number to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular city election...." Id. Berent v. City oflowa Cio), 738 N.W.2d 193, 197 (Iowa 2007). While Berent addressed the petition process as it pertained to amendments to the City Charter, there is no case law that we are aware of that would allow the City to exclude those same electors who are eligible to sign petitions to alter the form of government of the City through the Charter from participating in the ordinance -generative initiative and referendum process. In an earlier case, City of Clinton v. Sheridan, 530 N.W.2d 690 (Iowa 1995), the Court, in dicta recognized that "The power of direct legislation by initiative and referendum frequently is given to qualified voters of a municipality." City of Clinton v. Sheridan, 530 N.W.2d at 693. The Court also cited a well known 1989 legal treatise on municipal law by Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, which discusses the petition power's extension to qualified voters of a municipality. Those terms remain undefined and undistinguished from eligible voters in both the case and Jan. 13, 2014 treatise, however. Neither speaks to the specific question presented here in the case of Iowa City's charter: If state law allows eligible electors to have petition power vis-A-vis their city in one context —the charter, may a city limit the petition power to only qualified electors (that is, eligible electors who are already qualified to vote), in another context — municipal ordinances? Thus, the Berent case provides the only useful precedent that we are aware of to guide the analysis in determining this question of preemption. Specific Provisions Preempted by State Law As we stated in our Nov. 19 letter, it is our belief that Section 7.03 of the City Charter of Iowa City is preempted by state law because it is in direct conflict with Iowa Code §362.4 in at least three ways: 1. It requires that petition signatures be from "qualified electors," thus excluding the signatures from many eligible electors, who are to be allowed petition rights under state law; 2. It requires petitions to contain signatures equal to 25 percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, thus prohibiting petitions signed by merely ten percent of the number of persons, the number specified under state law; and 3. It requires a minimum of 2,500 signatures for a valid petition, thus prohibiting petitions signed by the minimum 10 people allowed under state law when that number exceeds ten percent of the number of voters in the preceding city election. Discriminatory Effects that Exclude a Class of Eligible Iowa City Voters We would, however, challenge the exclusion of eligible electors who are not "qualified" by virtue of already being registered to vote on additional grounds related to the discriminatory impact of the limitation, regardless of the technical question of preemption by the Code. Section 7.03 of the City Charter by definition excludes Iowa City residents who are eligible to vote but who are not already registered from fidly participating in the democratic process in Iowa City. Those who are eligible to vote but not yet registered are especially likely to be students and other newcomers to the City —a younger, more racially and socioeconomically diverse population than the larger Iowa City population. The distinction thus serves to disproportionately exclude and further marginalize Iowa City residents who are eligible but not yet registered to vote. As a result, the current provision, which functions to systematically exclude those eligible voters from equal participation in their local government, has clear, highly problematic, discriminatory effects. Section 7.03 of the City Charter as it is currently written separates voters into classes and burdens the right to petition the government in ways that are arbitrary and unreasonable. It is unclear what valid government purpose is served by classifying voters as "eligible" and "qualified," and only allowing signatures from "qualified" voters to Jan. 13, 2014 count toward petition requirements. The Charter Review Commission should take this opportunity to ensure equality and fairness in its petition and initiative process for all Iowa City voters as consistent with the proud tradition of valuing and promoting civil and human rights in Iowa City. Therefore the ACLU of Iowa strongly urges you to amend these provisions as we outlined in our November letter, which is attached. Sincerely, /s/ Rita Bettis Rita Bettis Legal Director ACLU of Iowa 505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901 Des Moines, IA 50309-2316 (515)-243-3988 ext. 15 Attachment: November 19, 2014 Letter, including Proposed Revised Charter Text Jan. 13, 2014 505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901 Des Moines, IA 50309-2316 www.aclu-ia.org City Council Members and Charter Review Commission c/o Marian Karr, City Clerk City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 November 19, 2014 Delivered by email to: citycharter(&iowa-city.orQ, councilOioiva-city of - and Eleanor- dilkesc iowa.cit Re: Recommendations to Bring Iowa City Charter Provisions Regarding Petition Validity in Line with Statutory and Constitutional Requirements Dear Council Members and Charter Review Commission, This letter is written on behalf of the ACLU of Iowa, including the Hawkeye Chapter of the ACLU of Iowa in Iowa City. As the city goes through its charter review process, the ACLU of Iowa strongly urges you to amend several provisions of the City Charter of Iowa City ("Charter"). We are specifically concerned with the process for initiative and referendum laid out in the Charter, as well as the prohibition on amending the charter through that process. Those provisions unnecessarily exclude Iowa City residents who are eligible to vote but who are not already registered from fully participating in the democratic process in Iowa City. These provisions are in direct conflict with state law in numerous ways, and the state has legislated in this area so thoroughly as to demonstrate an intention to preempt local provisions. These provisions separate voters into classes and burden the right to petition the government in ways that are arbitrary, unreasonable, and likely unconstitutional. It is unclear what valid government purpose is served by classifying voters as "eligible" and "qualified," and only allowing signatures from "qualified" voters to count toward petition requirements. Thus, not only is the Charter subject to challenge on grounds that it is statutorily preempted, but the differentiation in the Charter between "eligible" and "qualified" voters may violate some Iowa City residents' constitutional rights. I. Section 7.03 of the City Charter of Iowa City is preempted by Iowa Code § 362.4 (2014). Express preemption of a city ordinance occurs when the general assembly has prohibited local action in an area. Goodell v. Humboldt Cnty., 575 N.W.2d 486, 492 (Iowa 1998). Implied preemption of a city ordinance by Iowa law occurs when an ordinance prohibits an act permitted by statute, or permits an act prohibited by statute. Id. at 493. Field preemption occurs when the legislature has "cover[ed] a subject by statutes in such a manner as to demonstrate a legislative intention that the field is preempted by state law." Citv of Council Bluffs v. Cain, 342 N.W.2d 810, 812 (Iowa 1983). A city's home rule powers under Iowa law do not extend to those ordinances which are "inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly." Iowa Code § 364.1 (2014). A local ordinance is inconsistent with a state law when it is irreconcilable with it. Goodell, 575 N.W.2d at 500; see also BeeRightTire Disposal/Recycling, Inc. v. City of Rhodes, 646 N.W.2d 857 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002). Because the Iowa City Charter is irreconcilable with Iowa law setting forth petition requirements that a municipality may impose, it is preempted by state law and must be revised. Iowa Code § 362.4, "Petition of eligible electors," sets forth the requirements of a petition of the voters if such a petition is authorized by municipality: "If a petition of the voters is authorized by the city code, the petition is valid if signed by eligible electors of the city equal in number to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular city elcction, but not less than ten persons, unless otherwise provided by state law." In Berent v. City of Iowa City, 738 N.W.2d 193, 197 (Iowa 2007), the Iowa Supreme Court interpreted § 362.4 as establishing the validity of petitions that are "signed by eligible electors of the city equal in number to ten percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular city election...." Id (emphasis added.) It held that "[t]here are no other statutory requirements for validity ... Our legislature, moreover, has directed that if a petition meets these two statutory requirements, it is `valid' under section 362.4 and the city council 'must' submit the proposed amendment to the voters." Id. at 200. Because the Berent case, which dealt with amendments to the Iowa City Charter, interpreted the code section that is equally applicable to all petitions, it is highly likely the Court would apply it the same way to initiative and referendum petitions. The City Charter violates the requirement established by Iowa Code § 362.4. The text of § 7.03, subsection "A" of the City Charter of Iowa City, "Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures," states that "[i]nitiative and referendum petitions must be signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, but such signatures shall be no fewer than two thousand five hundred qualiflerl electors." A "qualified elector," in turn, is defined by the Charter as "a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote in Iowa City." This is notably a much smaller class of voters than all "eligible electors," which the charter defines as those who are "eligible to register to vote in Iowa City." Thus, this section of the City Charter of Iowa City is preempted by state law because it is in direct conflict with Iowa Code §362.4 (2014) in at least three ways: (1) It requires that petition signatures be from "qualified electors," thus excluding the signatures from many eligible electors, who are to be allowed petition rights under state law; (2) It requires petitions to contain signatures equal to 25 percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, thus prohibiting petitions signed by merely ten percent of the number of persons, the number specified tinder state law; and (3) It requires a minimum of 2,500 signatures for a valid petition, thus prohibiting petitions signed by the minimum 10 people allowed under state law when that number exceeds ten percent of the number of voters in the preceding city election. 11. Proposed Revised Charter Text Below, please find suggested text to cure the current deficiencies in the Charter. DEFINITIONS As used in this charter: 1. "City" means the city of Iowa City, Iowa. 2. "City council' or "council" means the governing body of the city. 3. "Councihnember" means a member of the council, including the mayor. 4. "Shall' imposes a duty. 5. "Must" states a requirement. 6. "May" confers a power. 7. "Eligible elector" means a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa City. 8. 'Board" includes a board, commission, committee or other similar entity however designated. 4$ 9. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, political party, committee or any other legal entity. -I>L 10. "Ordinance" means a city law of a general and permanent nature. 4-2: 11. "Measure", except as provided in article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976; amd. Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985; Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocations Of Signatures. A. Number Of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by qualified eligible electors equal in number to at least twenty five ten percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, but such signatures shall be no fewer than two thousand five ten qualified eligible electors. Any petition that does not, on its face, contain the minimum required signatures defined herein shall be deemed insufficient for filing under this article, and no supplementary petition shall be permitted. III. Conclusion Given the statutorily preempted and likely unconstitutional nature of the current language governing eligible and qualified electors in the Charter, the ACLU of Iowa strongly urges you to amend these provisions as provided above. We would be happy to provide additional information and answer any questions you may have regarding this letter or the text we suggest be adopted in the Charter. You may call or email me directly at the contact information provided below my signature. Sincerely, /s/ Rita Bettis Rita Bettis Legal Director ACLU of Iowa 505 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901 Des Moines, IA 50309-2316 (515)-243-3988 ext. 15 Marian Karr From: Vanessa Ryan <vanessa.ryan91@gmail.com> )ent: Thursday, January 15. 2015 10:40 AM ,'o: City Charter Subject: Direct Election of Mayor To the Charter Review Commission: I was unable to attend your recent forum which was held on perhaps the coldest night of the year when many if not all public events were postponed. My respiratory condition did not allow me to venture out on that night. In any event, I have some thoughts on whether the Charter Review Commission should choose what is evidently a "revolutionary" idea in Iowa City, that is having the citizenry vote for their own mayor. Iowa City is THE ONLY city or town in Iowa which does not permit their citizens to elect their own mayor. Isn't this amazing? I have found only a few other cities in the country which have appointed mayors, mainly in California. I could find none in any other state. Of all its distinctions Iowa City possesses, I am not roud of this one. Iowa City has one of the most educated electorates in the country. If all other Iowans and the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens are allowed to vote for their mayor, the system appears to have been well tested and I am confident Iowa Citians can handle this additional responsibility. Iowa City is blessed with a very good mayor at this time. This is not to say this has happened all the time in Iowa City's history or will always happen in the future. Often times to achieve a consensus, a group will choose the "least offensive" option. The "least offensive" person is most often NOT the most effective leader. In a time of local crisis or disaster of some type, would you really want your least offensive/most submissive Council member to be the voice of Iowa City, one rather one who has the mandate of the people and who could encourage and lift them up at a critical time. Likewise, the Council member with the most electoral votes, who has the highest confidence level among the electorate, may never be appointed Mayor by his/her colleagues in Iowa City. This is not a hypothetical — it has happened in Iowa City, as my uncle has related to me. The present appointment of the Mayor is done behind the scenes and is definitely not transparent. Although the citizens cannot see what goes on in what used to be the smoke filled rooms, one can picture the ill -will and residual negative feelings and mistrust if more than one dares to vie for the post. Why saddle your elected body with the potential to inflict permanent damage on the internal working relationships when they 'lave to choose one from their own as mayor? Let the people decide the issue instead. An effective government is based on well designed system of checks and balances. We are currently lucky to have a very effective city manager. I can safely predict it won't always be that case in the future. I for one would be more confident in a system that provides for an elected Mayor to act as a necessary counter to any abuse of powers of the unelected City Manager should that situation ever arise. When a Mayor is elected by the public, they are ultimately accountable to the public, not to the City Manager or to their fellow Council members. in the past when a very submissive Mayor is in office at the same time as a strong City Manager, the perception is that the City Manager "runs the show". An elected mayor for Iowa City does not necessary mean a "strong" mayor like those in major U.S. cities. Often times, like in Coralville's case, they do not vote except in case of a tie and don't really have much additional legal authority. It's not like they can become a dictator. They do, however, have something the Iowa City Mayors do not —their direct election by the electorate to fill this post. With a careful allocation of Mayoral duties and authority (weak mayor), I see the benefits of this change vastly outweighing any possible negatives. I am sure as volunteers on this commission is not easy to act against the inertia of some 60 years of this same form of government. You are not hearing from everyone, as there have been no direct mail flyers or online polling or online city halls to help formulate your final recommendations. You are relying on the same public input methods that have been used for decades before you. I dare say the system appears to be designed so changes are more likely NOT to occur and the status quo continue. it would be easy to just put the stamp of approval on the current system, call it quits and pass it off for another ten years. I urge you to take the more difficult road and make a positive change for this community. Make your time invested in this effort mean something. Having a directly elected Mayor is not a revolutionary change. Again I remind you, if all other Iowans are entrusted with this responsibility, why should Iowa Citians alone be disenfranchised? Thank you for your public service. Vanessa Ryan Marian Karr From: mg9425@mchsi.com Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 6:14 PM fo: City Charter Subject: City Charter Feedback Dear Members of Iowa City's Charter Review Commission, Iowa City Charter was written for much simpler times, and I am pleased that it is under review as the status quo no longer suffices. Since amendments can include changes and additions, I support the following: 1. Requirement that the mayor be elected directly by the voters. 2. That Iowa City be divided into seven districts of approximately the same size population and common interests and that each district elect its own representative who is required to reside in that district. District campaigns should cost less to run than city wide campaigns and would potentially allow more candidates to come forward. 3. That the word "qualified" be changed to "eligible" in what is currently Article VII on Initiative and Referendum to make it easier to petition City Council. 4. That "Duties of City Manager" include that City Manager will be held accountable by the City Council for A) hort, mid- and long-term goals (and identification of the same) and B) actively and routinely soliciting participation from City neighborhood groups and members. 5. That an "Open and Transparent Government & Citizen Participation" Article be added to the charter, which requires the following: A. That posted on City's website in a common location will be 1) the name of each Tax Increment Financing (TIF) project, 2) its stated public purpose, 3) identification of Urban Renewal Area, 4) a statement about whether the TIF subsidized project would be built and the site developed but for provision of TIF, 5) the amount and type of financing, including whether the TIF project would be able to avail itself of (e.g. receive, sell, or otherwise transfer) any tax credits (e.g. for workforce housing) and 6) time period for TIF. I am not against reasonable TIFs; however, given the amount of money involved in TIFs and that they are now being used, in part, for purely residential housing, I find it odd the voters do not get to vote on TIFs--openness and transparency are essential so voters can understand exactly what the City and Council are doing with TIFs. B. That any consultant(s) used by City staff and/or council or commission to evaluate TIF or similar projects must submit itself (themselves) to Iowa's Open Records law. C. That TIF requesters or grantees must disclose the identities of all members and shareholders, whether they be direct or indirect, so that there are no anonymous TIF requesters or grantees. I would also support requiring TIF requesters (direct or indirect) to provide tax returns for the last five years. That City will agree that emails sent to and from private email accounts concerning City business will be subject ,o Iowa's Open Records law and included in any Open Records request without a separate request or further delay. E. That Planning and Zoning and Economic Development Commissions' or their successors' (or similar commissions) meetings will be videotaped and put on public access television and posted on the City's website for public viewing in a timely manner. That City Manager will annually provide to City Council and on the City's website information as to 1) the number of open records requests that year, 2) whether requests were granted or denied, 3) time period City staff took to respond, and 4) any reason for a denial along with a statement about whether City has open records requests pending. G. That City Manager will be required to and held accountable for the posting online on the City's website in an easy to find and visible manner each contract City enters into in excess of $35,000 and that dividing contracts into multiple parts to avoid compliance is disallowed. 6. That an "Ethics Code and Conflicts of Interest" Article be added to the Charter, which would apply to city council members, city staff, and vendors along with accountability measures and the requirement that training be provided to all under the purview of the Article. I would also be fine with the Charter requiring the city to create an ethics code in a timely manner. Given the amount of money now flowing through city coffers and ongoing development challenges like granting TIFs to business entities with anonymous members and shareholders, the city must take a more proactive approach to addressing potential corruption problems. That a specific provision on removal and/or forfeiture of office by a council member be included in the Charter. would further request that the Commission publicly request feedback beyond the four specific issues noted at its January 7, 2015, meeting to ensure that the public understands that it can provide feedback about additions and changes to the charter. Otherwise, I am concerned that the scope of review of the Commission will be too narrow to effectuate sufficient positive change. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary Mary Murphy 890 Park PI Iowa City, IA 52246 319/400-7464 mg9425@mchsi.com From Andy Chappell 16 Jan.12 -18, 2015 Corridor Business Journal charterReviewing low Nearly 10 years ago, in June 2005, voters in Cedar Rapids determined that change was needed to the city's form of govern- ment. I' It was a seemingly drastic change, after nearly 100 years of the same government structure. The city wasn't as efficient as it needed to be un- der the previous Commission form of government, in which there were essentially fiefdoms under individu- ally elected commissioners.We felt change was war- ranted. While it took some time to get the new City Man- ager form of government working effectively, cve feel that the city is moving in the right direction with Jeff Pomeranz as the city manager and Ron Corbett as _ mayor. It was, and continues to be, the right move for the city. Now, a similar discussion is now taking place in Iowa City as part of a requirement that rolls around every 10 years. The Iowa City Council appoints a re- view commission to ensure the city's governmental processes and structures live up to the five principles outlined in the charter's preamble: 1. That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the responsibility for it. 2. That the government of Iowa City is a service in- y sfitution, responsive and accountable to its citizens. _ 3. That city officials should be accessible to the people and have an affirmative obligation to secure _ for each person equality of opportunity as well as due process and equal protection of law. 4. That each citizen has a right to obtain fair, equal and courteous treatment from each city official and ' employee. 5. That the city should perform all acts and take all measures necessary and desirable to promote the gen- eral health, safety and welfare of its residents, to en- courage the participation of its citizens in policy for- mation and to secure the full benefits of 'home rule.' We appreciate the Iowa City's Charter Review Com- mission and its healthy process — especially seeking input from the public — but we don't feel that changes are warranted right now. The city manager, mayor and council are working as effectively as they have in the -past few decades. We're hopeful the city will continue to build on its current momentum and preserve its current form of government. Marian Karr From: Tom Carsner <carsner@mchsi.com> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 6:39 PM To: City Charter Subject: City Charter Proposals To The Charter Review Commission: Please consider a few additional proposals to revise the Iowa City Charter as follows: 1. 2.06.13 Add creation of meeting agenda to Mayoral duties. (The popularly elected Mayor should set the agenda for City Council meetings.) 2.2.06.1) Add a new point establishing a greater salary for Mayor (1.5x or 2x) than for other Councilors. (The popularly elected Mayor would be a leader above other councilors should be expected to dedicate more time to the job, but also be compensated for the additional time. This may put the Mayor at 3/4 time and Councilors at 3/8 time, or 1/2 and 1/4. The salary should be tied and indexed to some well -accepted data point such as Iowa City median income.) 3.4,04.A(11) Remove this from City Manager duty and move Budget making to Mayor duty. (The popularly elected Mayor should present a budget proposal the Council.) These proposals are all steps toward moving power to the mayor from the City Manager. What I propose is that Iowa City move to a Strong Mayor form of government and leave the Council -Manager form of government. Does the Iowa Code outline the organization of the Strong Mayor form of government? (Does the Iowa League of Municipalities —or another group —have such an outline?) If so, it is easier to simply adopt the best of that outline than to make these series of step-by-step changes, Thank you for your consideration of these proposals. Tom Carsner 319-338-9335 carsner@mchsi.com 1-5-3 COMPENSATION': 1-5-4 A. City Council Members2: Members of .the city council shall be compensated at the rate of five thousand six hundred ninety four dollars seventy eight cents ($5,694.78) annually. (Ord..99-3906, 10-19-1999) B. Mayor2: Compensation for the mayor will be the same rate as a city council member plus one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) annually. i C. Review Of Compensation: Staff will adjust city council compensation 5J based on the cumulative annual percent change in the consumer price index (CPI) for urban wage earners and clerical workers up (CPI-W), U.S. city average, all items, using the third quarter ending Vql September 30 of the prior year and September 30 of the current QD§/ year. The calculated amount will be included in the annual budget for review by the city council in each regular election year in accordance with the code of Iowa, as amended. (Ord. 97-3804, 9-9-1997) D. Health Insurance: Beginning January 1, 2004, health insurance shall be available to a council member on such terms and conditions as health insurance is available to city employees, except that a city council member's. participation in the city's group health insurance plan shall be at the council member's own expense and at no cost to the city. (Ord. 03-4064, 3-11-2003) 1-5-4: MAYOR3: A. Powers And Duties: 1. The mayor shall act as the official representative of the city. The mayor shall be recognized as the official head of the city by the courts and officers of the state. The mayor shall have and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties provided by law. (1978 Code §2-46; amd. 1994 Code) 2. The mayor shall sign documents on behalf of the city as required by law. (1978 Code §2-45; amd. 1994 Code) 1. See charter §2.05 for requirement. 2. A change in compensation shall be effective January 1, 2000. 3. See charter 62.06 for requirements. Iowa City E Prepared by: Marian Karr, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5041 ORDINANCE NO. na-4155 ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 1, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL," TO FREEZE THE COMPENSATION FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REPEAL THE REVIEW POLICY ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 97-3804. BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to freeze the rate of compensation paid to the Mayor and City Council Members in recognition of the current economic climate; and to remove the review of compensation policy established by Ordinance 97-3804 providing for review in each regular election year in accordance with State Code. SECTION II. AMENDING SECTION 1-5-3.A Repealing Section 1-5-3A in its entirety and adding a new section to read as follows: A. City Council Members. Members of the City Council shall be compensated at the rate of seven thousand seventy two dollars ($7,072.00) annually. SECTION III. AMENDING SECTION 1-5-3C. Repealing Section 1-5-3C in its entirety. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2010. Passed pnd approved this Eli ATTEST: Ap roved by: City Attorney's Office deWwdkw ens.do day of August , 2009. 71i41og HOME RULE CHARTER 6 I) '1 ` Q '� '� /] Page 5 of 9 E. The Mayor is responsible for enforcement of all laws, provisions of this Charter and actions of the Council. F. The Mayor shall appoint the Mayor Pro Tern, who will act as mayor during the Mayor's absence. SECTION 2.05 CITY MANAGER. The Council may by ordinance provide for a City Manager, and prescribe the Manager's powers, duties and compensation. The City has such an ordinance at the present time (Ordinance No. 1772, dated June 26, 1984) which shall continue in full force and effect subject to repeal or amendment by the Council in the manner provided by law. SECTION 2.06 BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. 1. Establishment. The Council may establish boards; commissions and committees in addition to those required by the laws of the State and shall specify the titles, duties, length of terms, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The Council may reduce or increase duties of any board, commission or committee; transfer duties from one to another or dissolve any board, connnission or committee, except as otherwise provided by Iowa law or this Charter. This section does not apply to "Standing Committees of the City Council." All members shall be residents of the City and eligible electors. 2. Appointment, Vacancies and Removal. The Mayor shall appoint, with the approval of the Council, all members of boards, commissions and committees unless otherwise provided by the laws of the State or existing ;ity ordinances at the time of the adoption of this Charter, and shall seek to provide broad representation on all boards, commissions and committees, subject to the requirements of the laws of the State of Iowa. All members shall be residents of the City and eligible electors. The Council shall establish procedures for not less than thirty (30) days' notice of vacancies on boards, commissions and committees and shall encourage nominations by citizens before the vacancies are filled. The Council shall establish conditions for the removal of members of boards, commissions and committees for just cause, consistent with the laws of the State. 3. Rides. All boards, commissions and committees shall adopt rules and procedures for their operation, including rules pertaining to open meetings, consistent with the laws of the State. SECTION 2.07 INITIATIVE AND 1. Initiative. The qualified electors have the right to propose ordinances to the Council, and if the Council fails to adopt an ordinance so proposed without any change in substance, to have the ordinance submitted to the voters at an election. 2. Referendum. The qualified electors have the right to require reconsideration by the Council of an existing ordinance, and if the Council fails to repeal such ordinance, to have it submitted to the voters at an election. 3. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms have these meanings: A. "Eligible electors" mean persons who possess all of the qualifications necessary to entitle the person to be registered to vote, whether or not the person is in fact so registered. B. "Ordinance" means all measures of a legislative nature, however designated, which are of permanent rather than temporary character and include a proposition enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy or plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration of a law, policy or plan http://www.amlegal.com/alpseripts/get-content.aspx 1/15/2015 HOME RULE CHARTER Page 6 of 9 already enacted by the Council. C. "Qualified electors" mean residents of the City who are registered voters of the City. 4. Limitations as to Subject Matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall not extend to any of the following: A. Any measure of an executive or administrative nature. B. The City budget. C. The appropriation of money. D. The levy of taxes or special assessments. E. The issuance of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds. F. The letting of contracts. G. Salaries of City employees. H. Emergency ordinances. I. Any measure required to be enacted by State or Federal law. J. Amendments to this Charter, except as provided in Section 2.08(1)(B) of this Charter. K. Amendments affecting the City Zoning ordinance. 5. Limitation cis to Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall be filed within two years after the same measure or a measure substantially the same has been submitted to the voters at an election. 6. Council Repeal, Aniendinent and Reenactment. No ordinance proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the Council without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant to this section, may for two years thereafter be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original initiative ordinance. No ordinance referred by referendum petition and repealed by the vote of the Council without submission to the voters, or repealed by the voters pursuant to this section, may be reenacted for two years thereafter except by vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition. 7. Construction. A. Scope of Power. It is intended that this section confer broad initiative and referendum powers upon the qualified electors of the City. B. Initiative. It is intended that an initiative petition will be valid and may repeal an existing ordinance in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new ordinance. It is intended that an initiative petition may amend an existing ordinance. C. Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may propose an election to repeal an ordinance in whole or in part. 8. Effect of Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not suspend or invalidate any ordinance under consideration and such ordinance shall remain in fill force and effect until its amendment ,)r repeal by Council pursuant to this Charter, or until a majority of the qualified electors voting on an ordinance . ote to repeal or amend the ordinance and the vote is certified by the Clinton County, Iowa Board of Canvassers. http://www.amlegal.com/alpseripts/get-content.aspx 1/15/2015 HOME RULE CHARTER Page 7 of 9 9. City Obligation. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing ordinance in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the City, its agencies or any person in reliance on the ordinance during the time it was in effect. 10. Comuuencenrent of Proceedings. One or more qualified electors, hereafter referred to as the "petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the City Clerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed initiative ordinance or citing the ordinance sought to be reconsidered. 11. Affidavit. The City Clerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face it appears to have signatures of one or more qualified elector(s). The City Clerk shall issue the appropriate petition forms to the petitioners within two (2) days after the affidavit is accepted for filing. 12. Petitions. / A. Number of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by( qualifieAlectors equal in number to at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the number of persons who voted in the last regular City election, but by not fewer than 1,500 qualified electors. B. Forin and Content. All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one instrument. Each signature on the petition must be followed by the address of the person signing and the date signature is executed. A petition prepared for circulation must contain or have attached thereto throughout its circulation the full text of the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the City Clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the ordinance being proposed or referred. C. Affidavit of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a qualified elector certifying the number of signatures on the paper, that he/she personally circulated it, that all signatures were affixed in his/her presence, that he/she believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by Iowa law. D. Tirrue for Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an initiative petition must be secured and the petition filed within six months after the date the affidavit required under Section 2.07(10) was filed. E. Tine for Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions maybe filed within six months after the date the affidavit required under Section 2.07(10) was filed.. 13. Procedure After Filing. A. Cer•tif cate of Clerk Within twenty (20) days after a petition is filed, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to its sufficiency, specifying, if it is insufficient, the particulars wherein it is defective and shall promptly send a copy of the certificate to the petitioners by registered mail, and a copy to the Mayor, who shall advise the Council. If a petition is certified sufficient, the City Clerk shall promptly present the certificate to the Council. / Validity of Signatures. petition shall be deemed sufficient for the purposes of this section if it contains valid signatures umber prescribed by subsection 12 and is timely filed, even though the petition may contain one or more invalid signatures. A valid signature need not be in the identical form in which the qualified elector's name appears on the voting rolls, nor may a signature be deemed invalid because the address accompanying the name on the petition is different fiom the address for the same name on the current voting rolls. http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 1/15/2015 HOME RULE CHARTER Page 8 of 9 14. Action on Petitions. A. Action by Council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been certified sufficient, the Council ,hall promptly consider the proposed initiative ordinance or reconsider the referred ordinance. If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative ordinance without any change in substance within sixty (60) days, or fails to repeal the referred ordinance within sixty (60) days after the date the petition was finally determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or referred ordinance to the qualified electors of the City as hereinafter prescribed. The Council shall submit to the voters any ordinance which has been proposed or referred in accordance with the provisions of this section unless the petition is deemed insufficient pursuant to subsection 13 of this section. If at any time more than thirty (30) days before the scheduled initiative or referendum election the Council adopts the proposed initiative ordinance without any change in substance, or repeals a referred ordinance, the initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred ordinance shall not be submitted to the voters. B. Submission to Voters. The vote of the City on a proposed or referred ordinance shall be a special election to be held at the regular City election, or at a general election, whichever comes first, provided, however, that the Council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred ordinance any time after the expiration of the sixty (60) day period provided for reconsideration in paragraph A of this subsection. Copies of the proposed or referred ordinance shall be made available to the qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the City's expense in the manner prescribed by the laws of the State. The subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed ordinance shall be indicated on the ballot. 15. Results of Election. A. Initiative, If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative ordinance vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results by the Clinton County, Iowa loard of Canvassers and shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as ordinances of the same kind adopted by the Council, except as provided in Section 2.07(6). If conflicting ordinances are approved by majority vote at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred ordinance vote against it, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results by the Clinton County, Iowa Board of Canvassers. If conflicting ordinances are approved by majority vote at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. 16. Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or Requirements. The Council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by this Charter. SECTION 2.08 CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW. 1. Amendments. This Charter may be amended only by one of the following methods: A. The Council, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the voters at a special City election or a general election, and a proposed amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting. B. The Council, by ordinance, may amend the Charter. However, within thirty (30) days of publication of 'he ordinance, if a petition signed by eligible electors of the City equal in number to ten percent (10%) of the ersons who voted at the last preceding regular City election, but not less than 10 persons, is filed with the Council, the Council must submit the amending ordinance to the voters at a special City election or general http://www.amlegal.com/alpseripts/get-conteiit.aspx 1/15/2015 Marian Karr From: Schantz, Mark E <mark-schantz@uiowa.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 8:46 PM ro: Marian Karr Subject: RE: Charter Review Attachments: image001.png Marian: here is my proposal concerning electing the mayor. Feel free to have someone put this in the form used in the charter and otherwise make it easier to read. Proposed Amendments to Article II Article IL Mayor and City Council Section 2.01. Composition The City Council consists of a mayor and six other council members. As provided in Article III, three, to be known as council members at large, are to be nominated by eligible electors of the city at large, and three to be known as district council members, are to be nominated by eligible electors of their respective districts. All council members shall be elected by the qualified electors of the city at large. Section 2.06 Mayor A. Mayor Elected at Large At each regular election, the eligible voters of the City shall elect a mayor at large for a four-year term. B. Powers and Duties 1. The mayor shall be a voting member of the council and prepare the agenda for and preside at meetings of the council; represent the city in intergovernmental relationships; appoint members of council committees; with the advise and consent of the council, appoint the members of citizen advisory boards and commissions; present an annual state of the city message; and perform all other duties specified by the council. 2. The mayor shall be the policy leader of the council, shall be recognized as head of the city for all ceremonial purposes and by the governor for all purposes of military law, but shall not perform administrative duties expressly or by reasonable implication assigned to the city manager by this charter. (If adopted, conforming amendments to Art. III would be required.) Marian Karr From: Karen Kubby <kubby@pobox.com> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:28 AM ro: Marian Karr; Eleanor M. Dilkes; andy Chappell Subject: proposed charter changes Attachments: Chart with KK's suggested changes 1-19-2015.docx Marian, Attached my suggested changes to the charter (the most current version!). I've only made changes to the areas that are relevant to the areas of district council seats, mayoral election, and compensation. The only exception is the paragraph about the city manager's contract. The only awkward area is 3.026, as if these changes are accepted for forward to council, we will have either one or two at -large positions up at each regular election. Eleanor, if you have suggestions to smooth out this area, it would be appreciated. Please include this in our next packet. Andy, hope this finds its way to one of our upcoming agendas. Karen Beadology Iowa 220 E. Washington St. 'owa City, IA 52240 ,vww.beado lo¢viowa.com (319)338-1566 phone (319) 688-2847 fax PAGE 1 2014-15 REVIEW PREAMBLE The citizens of Iowa City, Iowa, by virtue of the enactment of this charter, adopt the following principles: 1. That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the responsibility for it. 2. That the government of Iowa City is a service institution, responsive and accountable to its citizens. 3. That city officials should be accessible to the people and have an affirmative obligation to secure for each person equality of opportunity as well as due process and equal protection of law. 4. That each citizen has a right to obtain fair, equal, and courteous treatment from each city official and employee. 5. That the city should perform all acts and take all measures necessary and desirable to promote the general health, safety and welfare of its residents, to encourage the participation of its citizens in policy formation and to secure the full benefits of "home rule." (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) DEFINITIONS As used in this charter: 1. "City" means the city of Iowa City, Iowa. 2. "City council' or "council' means the governing body of the city. 3. "Councilmember" means a member of the council, '^^' ding the maya•. 4. "Mayor" means the person elected as mayor. 45. "Shall' imposes a duty. -56. "Must" states a requirement. PAGE 2 2014-15 REVIEW 67. "May" confers a power. 78. "Eligible elector" means a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa City. 89. "Qualified elector" means a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote in Iowa City. 410. 'Board" includes a board, commission, committee or other similar entity however designated. 401. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, political party, committee or any other legal entity. 142. "Ordinance" means a city law of a general and permanent nature. 1.3. "Measure", except as provided in article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976; amd. Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985; Ord. 05- 4152, 3-1-2005) ARTICLE I. POWERS OF THE CITY Section 1.01. Powers Of The City. The city has all powers possible under the constitution and laws of this state. (Ord. 76- 2792, 1-2-1976) Section 1.02. Construction. The grant of power to the city under this charter is intended to be broad; the mention of a specific power in this charter is not intended to be a limitation on the general powers conferred in this article. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 1.03. Savings Clause. If any provision of this charter, or the application of this charter to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) 17eCa1#'. 2014-15 REVIEW ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL Section 2.01. Composition. The city council consists of seven members. As provided in article III, one, to be known as mayor, fewth� to be known as councilmembers at large, are to be nominated by eligible electors of the city at large, and three, to be known as district councilmembers, are to be nominated by eligible electors of their respective districts. The mayor and Aall councilmembers at large shall be elected by the qualified electors of the city at large. District councilmembers shall be elected by the qualified electors of their respective districts. (Ord. 85-3273, 12-17-1985) Section 2.02. Division Into Council Districts. The council, by ordinance, shall divide the city into three council districts of substantially equal population. These districts are to be designated as council district A, council district B, and council district C. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.03. Eligibility. To be eligible to be elected to and to retain a council position, a person must be an eligible elector of Iowa City, and if seeking or elected to represent a council district, must be an eligible elector of that council district. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 2.04. Terms. At the first election under this charter, all seven councilmembers are to be elected; the councilmember from council district A, council district C, and the two councilmembers at large who receive the greatest number of votes cast for councilmember at large are to serve for terms of four years, and other councilmembers are to serve for terms of two years. Commencing at the next regular city election, and at all subsequent regular city elections, the mayor and all councilmembers elected to fill the positions of those whose terms expire shall be elected for terms of four years. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.05. Compensation. n rra. PAGE 4 2014-15 REVIEW Compensation for councilmembers shall be 25%of the median income in Iowa City for a one person household. Compensation for the mayor shall be 25% of median Income in Iowa City for a one person household plus $2,000. Section 2.06. Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. . ......... .. .. rrr�raa� MUM cm �+ gm- oil IN .. @A. The mayor is a voting member of the council, the official representative of the city, presiding officer of the council and its policy spokesperson. The mayor shall set the agenda for the council. The mayor shall present to the city no later than February 28 an annual state of the city message. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) B. A Immediately following the beginning of the terms of councilmembers elected at the regular city election, the council shall meet and elect from among its members the mayor pro tem for a term of two years. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) C. The mayor pro tern shall act as mayor during the absence of the mayor. (Ord. 85- 3227,3-12-1985) Section 2.07. General Powers And Duties. All powers of the city are vested in the council, except as otherwise provided by state law or this charter. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) Section 2.08. Appointments. A. The council shall appoint the city manager. B. The council shall appoint the city clerk. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) C. The council shall appoint the city attorney. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) PAGE 5 2014-15 REVIEW D. The council shall appoint all members of the city's boards, except as otherwise provided by state law. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) E. The council shall fix the amount of compensation, if any, of persons it appoints and shall provide for the method of compensation of other city employees. All appointments and promotions of city employees by city council and city manager must be made according to job -related criteria and be consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards established pursuant to law. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28- 1995) Section 2.09. Rules; Records. The council may determine its own rules and shall maintain records of its proceedings consistent with state law. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.10. Vacancies. The council shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective city office as provided by state law. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.11. Council Action. Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires a majority vote of all the members of the council except as otherwise provided by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1- 2005) Section 2.12. Prohibitions. A. The mayor or Aa councilmember may not hold any other city office or be a city employee or elected county official while serving on the council nor hold any remunerated city office or employment for at least one year after leaving the council. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) B. With the exception of the appointment of the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department, which are subject to approval of the city council, neither the council nor its members may dictate, in any manner, the appointment or removal of PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW any person appointed by the city manager. However, the council may express its views to the city manager pertaining to the appointment or removal of such employee. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) C. The mayor or Aa councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or direction of any person appointed by or under the control of the city manager. (Ord. 76-2792, 1- 2-1976) ARTICLE III. NOMINATION, PRIMARY ELECTION AND REGULAR ELECTION Section 3.01. Nomination. A. An eligible elector of a council district may become a candidate for a council district seat by filing with the eity cleFk commissioner of elections a valid petition requesting that his or her name be placed on the ballot for that office. The petition must be filed not more than sixty-five (65) days nor less than forty (40) days before the date of the election and must be signed by eligible electors from the candidate's district equal in number to at least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) B. An eligible elector of the city may become a candidate for an at -large council seat by filing with the eity Elerk- commission of elections a petition requesting that the candidate's name be placed on the ballot for that office. The petition must be filed not more than sixty-five (65) days nor less than forty (40) days before the date of the election and must be signed by eligible electors equal in number to at least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) [NOTE: need to figure out how to word that at the first election after this charter change, one of the at -large seats becomes the Mayor seat and stays at large. Then at the next election cycle, there are two at -large seats open Every other election cycle there Is one at large seat, and every other election cycle there are two at -large seats open. Maybe we don't need to write this in, as it will be a natural result of this change7l C. An eligible elector of the city may become a candidate for the mayor's seat by filing with the commission of elections a petition requesting that the candidate's name be placed on the ballot for that office The petition must be filed not more than sixty-five (65) days nor less than forty (40) days before the date of the election and must be signed by eligible electors equal in number to at least two (2) percent of those who PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons At the first election for mayor under this Charter, the number of signatures needed for the candidacy petition for mayor will be election numbers from the last at - large council race. Section 3.02. Primary Election, A. If there are more than two candidates for a council district seat, a primary election must be held for that seat with only the qualified electors of that council district eligible to vote. The names of the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular city election as candidates for that council seat. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) B. if there are more than twice as many candidates as there are at large positionlsl to be filled, there shall be a primary election held • mess the council, by eMinance ehaeses with all qualified electors of the city eligible to vote. The names of the candidates which represents twice the number of at -large seat (s) up for election who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular city election as candidates (s) for that (those) council seats (s). (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) C. If there are more than two candidates for mayor, there shall be a primary election held with all qualified electors of the city eligible to vote. The names of the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular city election as candidates for mayor. Section 3.03. Regular City Election. A. In the regular city election, each council district seat up for election shall be listed separately on the ballot and only the names of candidates nominated from that council district shall be listed on the ballot as candidates for that seat. However-, all qualified electeFs f the eity ti,❑ he ..!.,titled to votp f9F each ,.andida The three council district seats shall be designated on the ballot as council district A, council district B and council district C and each shall be elected " by qualified electors in the district. B. The at large council seatlsl shall be designated on the ballot as such and shall be elected by all qualified electors of the city. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) C. The mayor shall be designated on the ballot as such, and shall be elected by all qualified electors of the city. PAGE 8 2014-15 REVIEW ARTICLE IV. CITY MANAGER Section 4.01. Appointment; Qualifications. In appointing a city manager, the council shall consider only the qualifications and fitness of the person without regard to political or other affiliation. During his or her tenure the city manager shall reside within the city. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 4,02. Accountability; Removal. A. The city manager is under the direction and supervision of the council and holds office at its pleasure. Unless " provided by ,.entFaGt a city fnanageF " `"move ";` the Pnunrll ig entitled to reGeive teFFRiHat09R pay of not less than tvin , B. Upon the resignation or removal of the city manager, the council shall appoint an individual qualified to perform the duties of city manager to serve at the pleasure of council or until a city manager is appointed. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 4.03. Absence; Disability Of City Manager. The city manager may designate a qualified city employee as acting city manager to perform his or her duties during a temporary absence or disability. If the city manager does not make such a designation, the council shall appoint a qualified city employee to perform the duties of the city manager until he or she returns. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 4.04. Duties Of City Manager. A. The city manager shall be chief administrative officer of the city and shall: (1)lnsure that the laws of the city are executed and enforced. (2)Supervise and direct the administration of city government and the official conduct of employees of the city appointed by the city manager including their employment, training, reclassification, suspension or discharge as the occasion requires, subject to state law. PAGE 9 2014-15 REVIEW (3)Appoint the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire department with the approval of the city council. (4)Supervise the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department, including their suspension or discharge as the occasion requires. Such supervision shall not be subject to approval of the city council. (5)Appoint or employ persons to occupy positions for which no other method of appointment is provided by state law or this charter. (6)Supervise the administration of the city personnel system, including the determination of the compensation of all city employees appointed by the city manager subject to state law or this charter. (7)Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the city, supervise all purchases of materials and supplies, and assure that such materials and supplies are received and are of specified quality and character. (8)Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and undertakings of the city, and all city -owned property including buildings, plants, systems, and enterprises, and have charge of their construction, improvement, repair and maintenance except where otherwise provided by state law. (9)Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans, drawings, specifications and estimates for the city. (10)Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and permits authorized by state law or city ordinance and cause a record thereof to be maintained. (11)Prepare and submit to the council the annual budgets in the form prescribed by state law. (12)Provide the council an itemized written monthly financial report. (13)Attend council meetings and keep the council fully advised of the financial and other conditions of the city and its needs. (14)See that the business affairs of the city are transacted in an efficient manner and that accurate records of all city business are maintained and made available to the PAGE 10 2014-15 REVIEW public, except as otherwise provided by state law. (15)Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and professional assistance to boards within limitations of the budget. (16)Perform such other and further duties as the council may direct. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1- 2005) B. The city manager, in performing the foregoing duties, may: (1)Present recommendations and programs to the council and participate in any discussion by the council of any matters pertaining to the duties of the city manager. (2)Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs of any department or the conduct of any employee under supervision of the city manager. (3)Execute contracts on behalf of the city when authorized by the council. (Ord. 85- 3227,3-12-1985) Section 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts. Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the city manager shall not take part in any election of councilmembers. This prohibition shall in no way limit the city manager's duty to make available public records as provided by state law or this charter. (Ord. 76- 2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE V. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Section 5.01. Establishment. A. With the exception of the citizens police citizens review board, the council may establish boards in addition to those required by state law and shall specify the title, duties, length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The council may reduce or increase a board's duties, transfer duties from one board to another or dissolve any board, except as otherwise provided by state law or this charter. B. There shall be a permanent citizens police citizens review board, which shall have vested in it the following minimum powers: PAGE 11 2014-15 REVIEW 1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearingG.tizens' views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City police department, and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the city council; 2. To investigate citizen claims of misconduct by sworn police officers and to issue independent reports of its findings to the city council; and 3. The authority to subpoena witnesses. (Res. 07-262, 8-31-2007) Section 5.02. Appointment; Removal. The council shall, subject to the requirements of state law, seek to provide broad representation on all boards. The council shall establish procedures to give at least thirty days' notice of vacancies before they are filled and shall encourage applications by citizens. Council procedures for the removal of members shall be consistent with state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 5.03. Rules. A. The council shall establish rules and procedures for the operation of all boards, which must include but are not limited to, the adoption of by-laws and rules pertaining to open meetings and open records. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) B. The council shall specify, for each board, methods for informal and formal communication with council, time schedules for the completion of reports requested by council and such rules as it deems appropriate. C. A board may establish additional rules and procedures that are consistent with state law, council rules, and this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE VI. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES Section 6.01. Limitations On The Amount Of Campaign Contributions. The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the amount of campaign 17e[alaea 2014-15 REVIEW contributions made to a candidate for election to council by a person as defined in this charter. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) Section 6.02. Disclosure Of Contributions And Expenditures. The council, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring the disclosure of the amount, source and kind of contributions received and expenditures made by (1) each candidate for election to council and (2) any and all other persons, for the purpose of aiding or securing the candidate's nomination or election. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 6.03. Definition. Within this article "contribution" shall be defined as that term is defined in chapter 68A ("campaign finance") of the code of Iowa. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 6.04. Violations. The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe: (1) penalties for the violation of the contribution limitations and disclosure requirements it establishes pursuant to this section; and (2) when appropriate, conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right to serve on council if elected, consistent with state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM Section 7.01, General Provisions. A. Authority. (1)Initiative. The qualified electors have the right to propose measures to the council and, if the council fails to adopt a measure so proposed without any change in substance, to have the measure submitted to the voters at an election. (2)Referendum. The qualified electors have the right to require reconsideration by the council of an existing measure and, if the council fails to repeal such measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an election. (3)Definition. Within this article, "measure" means all ordinances, amendments, resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of a permanent rather than temporary character and (b) include a proposition enacting, PAGE 13 2014-15 REVIEW amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy or plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration of a law, policy or plan already enacted by council. B. Limitations. (1)Subject Matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall not extend to any of the following: (a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature. (b) The city budget. (c) The appropriation of money. (d) The levy of taxes or special assessments. (e) The issuance of general obligation and revenue bonds. (f) The letting of contracts. (g) Salaries of city employees. (h) Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law. (i) Amendments to this charter. (j) Amendments affecting the city zoning ordinance or the land use maps of the comprehensive plan, including the district plan maps. (k) Public improvements subsequent to city council action to authorize acquisition of property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public improvement, whichever occurs earlier. "Public improvement" shall mean any building or construction work. (2)Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall be filed within two years after the same measure or a measure substantially the same has been submitted to the voters at an election. PAGE 14 2014-15 REVIEW (3)Council Repeal, Amendment And Reenactment. No measure proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the council without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant to this article, may for two years thereafter be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original initiative measure. No measure referred by referendum petition and repealed by the vote of the council without submission to the voters, or repealed by the voters pursuant to this article, may be reenacted for two years thereafter except by vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition. C. Construction. (1)Scope Of Power. It is intended that this article confer broad initiative and referendum powers upon the qualified electors of the city. (2)lnitiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because it repeals an existing measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new measure and (b) an initiative petition may amend an existing measure. (3)Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal a measure in whole or in part. D. Effect Of Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not suspend or invalidate any measure under consideration. Such measure shall remain in full force and effect until its amendment or repeal by council pursuant to section 7.05A or until a majority of the qualified electors voting on a measure vote to repeal or amend the measure and the vote is certified. E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing measure in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the city, its agencies or any person in reliance on the measure during the time it was in effect. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.02. Commencement Of Proceedings; Affidavit. A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors, hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the city clerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying 9_1h0V 2014-15 REVIEW the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed initiative measure or citing the measure sought to be reconsidered. B. Affidavit. The city clerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face it appears to have signatures of one or more qualified electors. The city clerk shall issue the appropriate petition forms to the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted for filing. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms and affidavits suitable for the commencement of proceedings and the preparation of initiative and referendum petitions. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures. A. Number Of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, but such signatures shall be no fewer than two thousand five hundred qualified electors. Any petition that does not, on its face, contain the minimum required signatures defined herein shall be deemed insufficient for filing under this article, and no supplementary petition shall be permitted. (Ord. 90-3462, 6-26-1990) B. form And Content. All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one instrument. Each person signing shall provide, and the petition form shall provide space for, the signature, printed name, address of the person signing and the date the signature is executed. The form shall also provide space for the signer's birthdate, but a failure to enter a birthdate shall not invalidate a signer's signature. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the city clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the measure being proposed or referred. C. Affidavit Of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a qualified elector certifying: the number of signatures on the paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures were affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) PAGE 16 2014-15 REVIEW D. Time For Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an initiative petition must be secured and the petition filed within six months after the date the affidavit required under section 7.02A was filed. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) E. Time For Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty days after final adoption by the council of the measure sought to be reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more than two years after such final adoption. The signatures on a referendum petition must be secured during the sixty days after such final adoption; however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final adoption, the signatures must be secured within six months after the date the affidavit required under section 7.02A was filed. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) F. Revocation Of Signature. Prior to the time a petition is filed with the city clerk, a signatory may revoke his or her signature for any reason by filing with the city clerk a statement of his or her intent to revoke his or her signature. After a petition is filed a signatory may not revoke his or her signature. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms suitable for the revocation of petition signatures. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) Section 7.04. Procedure After Filing. A. Certificate Of City Clerk; Amendment. Within twenty days after a petition is filed which contains the minimum required signatures, as set forth in section 7.03.A above, the city clerk shall complete a certificate as to the petition's sufficiency. If the petition is insufficient, the clerk's certificate shall specify the particulars wherein the petition is defective. The clerk shall also promptly send a copy of the certificate to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified insufficient may be amended once, provided, however, that one or more of the original petitioners files a notice of intention to amend the original petition. Such notice must be filed with the city clerk within two days after receiving a copy of the certificate, and the petitioner also must file a supplementary petition upon additional papers within fifteen days after receiving a copy of such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall comply with the requirements of subsections B and C of section 7.03. Within fifteen days after a supplementary petition is filed, the city clerk shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition, as amended and supplemented, and shall promptly send a copy of such certificate to the petitioners by registered mail, as in the case of an original petition. If a petition or amended petition is certified sufficient, or if the petition or amended petition is certified PAGE 17 2014-15 REVIEW insufficient and one or more of the petitioners do not request council review under subsection B of this section within the time prescribed, the city clerk shall promptly present the certificate to the council. B. Council Review. If a petition has been certified insufficient by the city clerk and one or more of the petitioners do not file notice of intention to amend it, or if an amended petition has been certified insufficient by the city clerk, one or more of the petitioners may, within two days after receiving a copy of such certificate, file with the city clerk a request that it be reviewed by the council. The council shall review the certificate at its next meeting following the filing of such a request, but not later than thirty days after the filing of the request for review, and shall rule upon the sufficiency of the petition. C. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the council's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) D. Validity Of Signatures. A petition shall be deemed sufficient for the purposes of this article if it contains valid signatures in the number prescribed by section 7.03 and is timely filed, even though the petition may contain one or more invalid signatures. A signature shall be deemed valid unless it is not the genuine signature of the qualified elector whose name it purports to be, or it was not voluntarily and knowingly executed. A valid signature need not be in the identical form in which the qualified elector's name appears on the voting rolls, nor may a signature be deemed invalid because the address accompanying the name on the petition is different from the address for the same name on the current voting rolls if the qualified elector's birth date is provided and is shown on the voting rolls. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) Section 7.05. Action On Petitions. A. Action By Council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been determined sufficient, the council shall promptly consider the proposed initiative measure or reconsider the referred measure. If the council fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure and fails to adopt a measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the council fails to repeal the referred measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or referred measure to the qualified electors of the city as hereinafter prescribed. If at any time more than thirty days before a scheduled initiative or referendum election the council adopts the proposed initiative measure or adopts a measure which is similar in substance or if the council repeals a referred measure, the initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred measure shall not be PAGE 18 2014-15 REVIEW submitted to the voters. B. Submission To Voters. (1) Initiative. The vote of the city on a proposed measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the sixty day period provided for consideration in section 7.05A, provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than 110 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections. (2) Referendum. The vote of the city on a referred measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the thirty day period provided for reconsideration in section 7.05A, provided that the referendum petition was filed no less than 80 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections. The council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred measure any time more than 120 days after the filing of the referendum petition with the city clerk. C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred measure shall be made available to the qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the city's expense in the manner required for "questions" in section 376.5 of the Iowa Code. The subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed measure shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. 05- 4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.06. Results Of Election. A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results. The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as measures of the same kind adopted by the council, except as provided in section 7.01B(3). If conflicting measures are approved by majority vote at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote in favor of repealing the measure, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of Stricter Conditions Or Requirements. PAGE 19 2014-15 REVIEW The council may not set, except by charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum which are highR o ^se n' than those imposed by this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE Vlll. CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW Section 8.01. Charter Amendments. This charter may be amended only by one of the following methods: A. The council, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the voters at a special city election, and the proposed amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting. B. The council, by ordinance, may amend the charter. However, within thirty (30) days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa is filed with the council, the council must submit the amending ordinance to the voters at a special city election, and the amendment does not become effective until approved by a majority of those voting. C. If a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa is filed with the council proposing an amendment to the charter, the council must submit the proposed amendment to the voters at a special city election, and the amendment becomes effective if approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 8.02. Charter Review Commission. The council, using the procedures prescribed in article V, shall establish a charter review commission at least once every ten years following the effective date of this charter. The commission, consisting of at least nine members, shall review the existing charter and may, within twelve months recommend any charter amendments that it deems fit to the council. The council shall either exercise its power of amendment pursuant to section 8.0113 of the charter on a matter recommended by the commission or submit such amendments to the voters in the form prescribed by the commission, and an amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05- 4152, 3-1-2005) PAGE 20 2014-15 REVIEW CHARTER COMPARATIVE TABLE The home rule charter is set out in this volume as adopted by the voters on November 15, 1973, and by ordinance 76-2792, on January 2, 1976. The following table shows the disposition of amendments to the charter: Ordinance Number DateDisposition 77-2826 3-15-1977 6.01 77-2858 9-6-1977 7.05E 77-2864 9-6-1977 3.01 85-3227 3-12-1985 Definitions 7,8, 2.01, 2,03, 2.05_2.08, 3.01_3.03, 4.04, 5.02, 6.04, 7.01_7.05, 8.01, 8.02 85-3228 3-12-1985 6.02 85-3273 12-17-1985 2.01 90-3462 6-26-1990 7.03A, 7.04A 95-36713-28-1995 2.0613, 2.08C,E, 3.01A, 6.01, 7.04D 05-4152 3-1-2005 Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2.05, 2.11, 2.12B, 3.01A, 3.02A, 4.04A, 5.02, 5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6,04, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03B,C,E, 7.04A,B,C, 7.05, 7.06, 8.01, 8.02 Res. 07-262 8-31-2007 5.01 Footnote 1: The home rule charter of the city, adopted by the voters of the city on November 15, 1973, and by ordinance 76-2792 on January 2, 1976, pursuant to I.C.A. section 372.9, is set out herein as adopted and amended. Marian Karr From: Adam B Sullivan <sullivan.ab@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:55 PM !o: Marian Karr Subject: Charter review memo Hi Marian - Could you please include this memo in the next commission packet? Thanks! abs Memo: Increasing the signature requirement for initiative and referendum petitions Adam B Sullivan, Charter Review Commissioner January 2014 The city charter requires initiative and referendum petitions to include signatures equal to 25 percent of the people who voted in the last regular city election, but no fewer than 2,500 signatures. That requirement has remained the same since the charter was first adopted in 1976. If the Charter Review Commission decides to increase that number in order to accommodate our community's growth over the last 40 years, it must be based on a measurable rationale. n the 1975 and 1977 city council elections - the earliest for which data is available from the Johnson County Auditor's Office - voter turnout in Iowa City averaged 9,750 voters. In other words, the 2,500 requirement was roughly reflective of 25 percent of the Iowa City voting population at the time. In the five Iowa City Council elections since this commission last convened (2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013), voter turnout averaged 10,337 voters. That is about a 6.5 percent increase over turnout from 1975-1977. The signature requirement should increase at the same rate as voter participation has increased. For that reason, I suggest the commission give strong consideration to increasing the number of signatures required on initiative and referendum petitions to 2,660, about a 6.5 percent increase over the current requirement. Iowa City voter turnout statistics 2013 - 10,936 2011 - 6,968 2009 - 4,685 2007 - 15,728 2005 - 13,366 1977 - 11,027 1975 - 8,472 Adam B Sullivan 319.430.7882 http://adambsullivan.com 2ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress ofgrievances.