Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-24-2015 Charter Review Commission1 FORUM WILL BE HELD 16:30 PM ON TUESDAY HARVAT HALL SEPARATE AGENDA ATTACHED CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, February 24, 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 2/10/15 b. Correspondence from: 1. Margaret and Charles Felling 2. Martha Hampel 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF 4. REVIEW RED -LINE VERSION CHARTER 5. REVIEW DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM Harvat Hall - February 24 (6:30 p.m.) 8. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE - (7:45 AM unless specified) • February 24 (6:30 p.m. Public Forum) • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] 9. ADJOURNMENT A A 1 - city of lots]•' ll FEBRUARY 24, 2015 6:30 PM CITY HALL, HARVAT HALL 1 East Washington ITEM NO. 2 INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS ITEM NO. 3 DISCUSSION OF RED LINED VERSION CHARTER AND OPEN DISCUSSION OF CHARTER • Accept correspondence ITEM NO. 4 UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] ITEM NO.5 ADJOURNMENT Charter Review Commission` February 10, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 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, Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. a. Minutes of the Meetings on 01/27/15 — Chappell asked if there were any proposed changes to the minutes. Kubby stated that on page 4, at the bottom, it says 'Chappell explained how the initial number was set.' Kubby stated that she reads this that the original 2,500 was based on the census, which isn't really quite right. It was instead a methodology that was agreed to. She believes they should acknowledge somewhere in the minutes that methodology. Karr suggested 'proposal' instead of 'initial' number. Kubby agreed to this wording. Kubby moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. b. Correspondence from: Jo Dickens REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Kubby stated that she contacted Caroline Dieterle and Carol deProsse who wrote an editorial in the Press -Citizen regarding 'qualified' versus 'elector' signatures on initiative and referendum petitions; stating she felt it was a disservice to say it was a 'split vote' without saying anything further about it and it was self-serving of them to do this. REVIEW CHARTER: 1. Language for Changing Qualified to Eligible for Initiative and Referendum * Proposal from Chappell (X2) — Chappell noted that he wanted to explain two examples that they could use to adjust 'qualified' to 'eligible.' The first example keeps all the descriptive system that they currently have. Chappell asked if this will be confusing, as it will look like the City Clerk is doing a lot more than she is really doing. He added that the group has not specifically discussed whether they wanted to keep 'qualified' for people who sign the initial affidavit, who initiate the change to begin with. Discussion centered on this issue, with Chappell asking if the group believes the Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 2 'petitioner' should be 'qualified.' Sullivan stated that he would be supportive of 'eligible' but that he believes there is a stronger case to be made that this should be 'qualified.' Chappell asked Schantz what his view are on this issue. Schantz stated that he does not feel strongly either way. Vanderhoef responded that she would be supportive of 'qualified,' as did most of the rest of the Commission. Kubby stated that she would say 'eligible' for consistency in the process. Vanderhoef moved that it is required of the petitioner in 7.02A to be a 'qualified' elector. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2, Kubby and Sullivan in the negative. Chappell then spoke to Section 7.03A and how the 3,600 number was reached, and secondly, how to adjust it. Wording to this effect is: "Signatures of eligible electors shall be no fewer than the number equaling 5.33% of the population of the City of Iowa City as determined by the most recent U.S. Census, rounded to the nearest hundred." He added that they can also have an example of this in the wording. Kubby stated that she does not believe the Charter is the place for an example, but that the Citizen's Guide would be a perfect place for this. Chappell asked if the group is okay with leaving the example out, and putting it in the Citizen's Guide instead. Craig stated that she agrees with Kubby, that having the example here is an important extra step in explaining the process. She then asked for some clarification on Chappell's versions, noting that in the first version it says 'no supplementary petition will be permitted,' and in the simplified version it is not addressed. She asked if there is a supplementary petition or not. Members continued to discuss this issue, noting that with the change from 'qualified' to 'eligible,' the supplementary petition will not be needed. Dilkes noted that the City Clerk will basically be making sure there are 2,500 signatures and 2,500 Iowa City addresses, nothing more, if the change is adopted. The previously required supplemental documentation would no longer be needed. Dilkes further clarified the Clerk's handling of this process and responded to Member questions regarding how the change would look. Karr noted that the process will be more front-end, one-on-one, than it is currently. Speaking to timelines, Dilkes pointed Members to Section 7.05B in the simple version. She noted how the time periods have shortened with the proposed changes put in place. Vanderhoef questioned how much time the Clerk has to do her portion once it's submitted, and Karr stated that the impression she got was it would be done ASAP, while the person is waiting, if possible. Dilkes stated that she included five days in the latest draft version, but that she could take this out. The conversation continued on this specific timeframe, and how the clock is ticking once a petitioner comes to the Clerk's office. Kubby asked what if someone just leaves their petitions and does not wait, and the Clerk's office is backlogged. Dilkes noted that the five-day timeframe is not on the front-end of the process. Members continued to discuss this issue, and whether to have the 'five-day' time period in here or not. Kubby then spoke to 7.04A in the simplified version. The second to last sentence , she believes, may cause some confusion: 'If it lacks the required number of signatures, it shall be considered invalid.' She stated that this may be legally true but that when the public reads this, it may appear that none of the signatures are valid any longer. She suggested they use 'insufficient' or some other word to show that the signatures collected are valid, but that more of them are needed. Dilkes attempted to clarify the use of 'valid' in 7.04A. Chappell asked Members which version they prefer, and Sullivan stated that he prefers the simplified version. He believes that leaving the language of the old process in is not really conducive to helping the public understand. Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 3 Craig stated that she had some questions about the Objections Committee that is in the simplified version only. Chappell stated that it is called a 'committee' but that it is really in response to the State code saying that you have to have a way to deal with ejections. He further explained how this is covered in the State code and who would serve on this 'committee,' should it be needed. Members agreed that the simplified version, minus the example, would be preferable to them. Chappell asked if there was a motion to adopt what has been labeled 'simplified system' for the changes to 'qualified' to 'eligible,' which would specifically be a document in the packet, while changing 7.02A and B back to 'qualified,' and removing the example from this section. Atkins moved to adopt the simplified system and noted changes above. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 9.0. Kubby noted that even though she does disagree with the 'qualified' in 7.02, she still agrees with the motion overall. Sullivan stated that he supports the motion due to the work put into it, but that he does not support the 5.33 % issue. 3. Use of word "citizen" in Citizen's Police Review Board — Chappell stated that he wanted to skip ahead to the third issue to make sure they cover it. Karr noted that the CPRB does meet this evening. Chappell then spoke to the issue, giving some background on where they are currently with this. Given that the group has agreed to remove the word 'citizen' from the Charter, the question now is whether it makes sense to remove the word 'citizen' in this section as well. Chappell noted that this is the one commission actually identified in the Charter. Another name suggested was 'Community Police Review Board' in place of 'Citizen.' Moyers -Stone asked for some clarification of the history of the CPRB and its name change in the past. Dilkes noted that if the name is changed in the Charter, staff will then have it changed in the ordinance and all other documents, thus changing the official name. Chappell asked if there was a motion and a second to change the name of the existing Citizens Police Review Board to Community Police Review Board. Sullivan moved to adopt the proposed name change to 'Community Police Review Board.' Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Karr stated that she would report this to the CPRB that evening. Kubby stated that the word 'community' is really more open as to who can file a complaint, compared to 'citizen,' which is the most restrictive of any of the terms. Kubby asked for further clarification on some of the other sections in this part, such as Section 5.02 Appointment and Removal, and the reference to 30 days' notice of vacancies. Karr clarified that the 30 days is for the initial appointment, and a shorter time is used for re - advertising. 2. Mayoral duties — Chappell then moved to the mayoral duties topic, noting that this is under 2.06B. Current duties are to be a voting member of the council, the official representative of the City, the presiding officer of the council, and its policy spokesperson. He noted that previously they had discussed adding language about having the ability to set the agenda. As to the agenda issue, Schantz noted that he used wording to the effect of 'in consultation with the city manager.' Atkins spoke to the agenda setting process, noting that it is traditionally a responsibility of the mayor and that this will confirm that. Chappell stated that this is true, that by changing the language of the Charter, they are not changing how the practice is handled. Vanderhoef spoke to how this practice could slow things down, noting examples of how this could happen if the mayor has to sign off on each agenda. She noted that the informal method they use now works very well, and that the mayor is involved in the process already. She Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 4 questioned making this a 'formal' process. Chappell noted that this is a good point. Kubby stated that the mayor knows they have to be available for this, and that it does not have to be officially 'signed off' on, that a phone call, for example, saying that something needs to be amended on the agenda should be good enough. She believes this outlines who prevails should there be a disagreement about what's on the agenda. Members continued to discuss the agenda -setting process, with Kubby stating that since they have decided to not change the way the mayor is selected, some of these tussle issues have been reduced. Dilkes then spoke to what she sees as a potential problem should they use the wording, 'Mayor shall set the agenda for the City Council.' They currently have a practice where if three members of the council want an item on the agenda, it goes on. If the mayor says, 'I don't care. I set the agenda, per the City Charter,' he has a pretty strong case in his favor. Sullivan asked if they should add language to the Charter about having three council members being able to put something on the agenda. Chappell stated that his concern is mucking up something that already works. He believes if they are going to find language to put in here that it needs to not do this. The current system appears to be working, and he spoke briefly to how changing this may not be what they are seeking here. Others agreed that the current system does appear to be working and they questioned why they would change it. Chappell spoke to having the wording such that the mayor has the ability to 'add items' to the agenda, but not to take them off — still using the current system for the most part. Vanderhoef spoke to whether this is referring to the formal meeting only, or also to the work session agenda. Kubby noted that it does not specify, so therefore should cover both agendas. Chappell agreed that this would cover both agendas. The language being proposed then is, 'The mayor may add items to the city council agenda.' Kubby moved to adopt the proposed change as stated above. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Kubby asked if there was any interest in discussing a 'term limit' for the selected mayor. She stated that she is not generally in favor of term limits, but that this was something that had some up earlier in their conversations. Vanderhoef stated that she would entertain this issue, but there was no further interest. 4. Other parts of the Charter as time allows - None PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF RED -LINE VERSION: Chappell noted that he had one question regarding this version, on page 7, the language on 4.02A. He noted that the language that Karr and Dilkes got from the commission's conversation was to keep the first sentence the same, add 'termination pay shall be as determined by contract,' and delete the existing second sentence. His notes, on the other hand, show that the sentence would read, 'A city manager removed by the Council is entitled to receive termination pay as provided by contract.' He added that they are not materially different, but that he wanted to see what others recall. Dilkes stated that she prefers Chappell's version as it is clearer and others agreed. Chappell then spoke to whether or not they need to keep their Friday meeting (2/13). He added that they are very close to having the document ready to go for the public forum on the 24rh. Kubby stated that she has a proposal regarding transparency in the mayor selection. Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 5 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: a. Language regarding selection of mayor Proposal from Kubby She provided three options for Members to review, noting that the idea is to have this process be very transparent. Sullivan stated that he prefers the third selection himself, but that this should have been introduced at one of the earlier forums. He would have liked to have gotten more community input on this issue. Atkins stated that he likes the word transparency, but that it has somewhat of a governmental buzzword feel to it. Members continued to discuss what the concern is here and whether there should be a public process, including input, on what qualities the mayor should have, for example. Chappell gave some examples of what this might look like. Shaw stated that he would like to think about this issue some more and not just dispose of it as not being relevant at this point in the process. Moyers -Stone stated that she appreciates Kubby's work and optimism, and she spoke to Kubby's proposed language here. Schantz stated that he agrees there is no in-between point of council selection and direct election. Chappell noted the late hour of the meeting and their need to wrap things up. He asked how much interest there was from Members to meet on Friday and continue the discussion on transparency in selection of the mayor. Shaw, Kubby, and Atkins were the only three wanting to have this conversation. Therefore, the meeting of Friday, February 13, 2015, was cancelled. Sullivan moved to preliminarily approve the current red -lined version, with a draft watermark on it. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: NO MIT Harvat Hall — February 24 (6:30 P 13 — meeting cancelled February 24 February 24 — 6:30 P.M. Public Forum March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 6 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > . EXP, CD co0 N -4 s o0A N N N O N WNAME 4 A A -P AA411/15 rX X X O/ X X X X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ X X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw -X--GI Anna 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X X 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 4/1/16 X X X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X Vanderhoef E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 7 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 201412016 TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NAME EXP. 0 w a> -4 w �4 0 a w o A A A N 07 f71 N W to CJf U9 GI 4/1/15 X X X X X X X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1115 X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 411/15 X X X X X X X Craig Karen 411115 X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1115 X X X O/ X X X Schantz E Melvin 411/15 X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 411115 X X X X O/ X X Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 411/15 X X X X O X X Vanderhoef Key., X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time _;6�4 02b (r) Marian Karr From: Margaret/Charles Felling <mcfelling@mchsi.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:49 AM To: City Charter Subject: Re: Charter Review Commission comment On Feb 17, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Margaret/Charles Felling <mcfellingnu mchsi.com> wrote: To: The Iowa City Charter Review Commission From: Charles R. Felling 85 South Seventh Avenue Iowa city, Iowa 52240 1. Thanks to each of you for the thought and the time you spend addressing the possible changes and additions to the Iowa City Charter. Your effort is appreciated. 2. I agree with the Commission's decision to continue our present mayor -council member. The mayor -council member seems to work well in offering a leadership point for the Council. Such was often not the case in the city governance of my hometown where the Mayor was not part of the Council. 3. Initiatives and Referendums, when well thought through, are great instruments for citizen/voter participation. As with voting, initiative or referendum action is not to be lightly taken. I believe that registration to vote is a verifiable and, perhaps, an indication of a willing responsible person. To vote one must be qualified and I think that should also be the qualifier for signing to signing a petition for initiative or for referendum. ( encourage more people to register to be a voter --not hard to do for most citizens) 4. Initiatives and Referendums --the number of signatures should be such that the number of signatures on the petition are sufficient to indicate 'reasonable need' without being inhibiting to the supporters of the initiative or referendum. A number based on percentage of the city population or the total registered voters seems verifiable and valid. -��)6 Ca) Marian Karr From: Marian Karr Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 9:45 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Regarding Qualified vs. Eligible Attachments: City_Election_Participation_vs. Population_Growth,_lowa_City_(1970-2013).pdf Iowa City Charter Review Commission, First of all, I want to thank Steve Atkins, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -Stone, and Adam Sullivan for their votes at the January 27th Charter Review Commission meeting to change the "qualified elector' requirement to "eligible elector' for persons signing Initiative and Referendum petitions. The decision to remove this anachronistic, discriminatory and otherwise nonsensical requirement will undoubtedly make our city government more accessible to all Iowa City residents who wish to appeal to our City Council for changes they feel will better our community. However, at that same January 27th meeting it also was decided by vote that the "minimum" number of required signatures would be increased from 2,500 to 3,600 based on population growth of Iowa City. This change is apparently intended to compensate for any potential disruption of our city's delicate balance of power that could have been caused by dropping the "qualified" requirement. The increase in the required number of signatures to 3,600 is excessive, and the decision to base this increase on population growth has no rational grounds. In fact, as I have researched the issue I have been unable to find a single state or city that uses population growth as a guide for signature requirements. I have also attached a PDF of a graph I created to illustrate the fact that population growth has absolutely nothing to do with voter participation in city elections. collected the data from our county auditor's website, the Census Bureau website, and previous Charter Review Commission meeting minutes. Commission members at the January 27th meeting claimed they did not know on what the original writers of the City Charter were basing the minimum required number of signatures. Luckily, "clues" can easily be found in Section 7.03.A. of our current City Charter, which requires signatures " 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." If the required number of signatures were based on population it would have read " ...equal in number to at least 5.33% of the population of Iowa City at the time of the last Census... " (2,500 was 5.33% of the population of Iowa City, 46,850 , when the Charter was passed). believe that the lack of increase in voter participation in city elections over the last 40+ years, as illustrated by the attached graph, is directly related to the limitations our City Charter has placed on citizen participation. Looking at voter turnout totals strongly indicates that it is the existence of issues on the ballot that drives voters to the polls for city elections and not candidates. For example, the 2007 city election ballot included two very important issues, and we had a record high for voter participation. However, the following city election in 2009 was a near record low and included no special issues on the ballot. As I searched the county auditor's website, I found this to be a consistent pattern. If the Charter Review Commission stands by it's vote to drop the "qualified elector" requirement, but continues to base the number of required signatures on voter turnout in city elections rather than population growth, the result will be a self- correcting mechanism, thereby making a statutory increase in the "minimum" number of required signatures unnecessary: i.e., the very success of petitioners in raising voter turnout by proposing an issue for the ballot will make the job of signature gathering for any succeeding petition harder, thus being a built-in self-correcting mechanism while still obeying the Code of Iowa regarding petition signatures. It would be a shame for the City of Iowa City to continue to limit democracy and citizen participation in local government by continuing to require signatures from "qualified electors" only, and an even greater embarrassment for Iowa City to set a precedent by basing signature requirements on something as illogical as population growth. I strongly urge the Charter Review Commission to reconsider the ill-conceived change to the minimum number of signatures, and adopt the petition process requirements as specified in Chapter 362.4 of the Code of Iowa. Thank you for your attention to this matter Martha Hampel PAGE 1 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. PREAMBLE Ue citizensf Iowa City, ,1evA+, by_ViTWe Af the PnR4MPRt of this ehaFte adept the fe l lewi n g-pr+aeipte s; m We, the ppet W:.i5f 1pwa City;. h5m,-p(qs Cant ti the Constitution and statutes of the State gtjgwa and ik'i ??anciple afIf-deferp it3�tion, do hereby adopt this Charter and confer;;, it the full *!e rule ppywers of a charter city. By this action we adopt the following lSftples: 1. Residenhlsa[ticipatioh'zin an inclusive basis in democratic self-government. 2. The provision`Liti'@.y i e relating to the health, safety, and welfare of its residents in a fair; equitable and efficient manner, 3. The conduct of city business inconformity with due process, equal protection under the laws, and those individual liberties protected by the Constitution of the United States, the State of Iowa, and local ordinances. 4. Civility by city employees in their interactions with the public. 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, including the mayor. 4. "Shall' imposes a duty. 5. "Must' states a requirement. 6. "May" confers a power. 7. "Eligible elector" means a 8. "Qualified elector" means a City. A::i-:R ' 9. "Board" includes 11. "Ord 12. "Measure", except`3Sj# ides resolution or motion. (Ord. 76-27! 4152, 3-1-2005) ARTICLE I. POWERS OF THE CITY Section 1.01. Powers Of The City. in Iowa PAGE 2 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. to vote in Iowa similar entity however parfil&ship, corporation, company, association, legal entity. of a general and permanent nature. in article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, Z, 1-2-1976; amd. Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985; Ord. 05- The city has all powers possible under the constitution and laws of this state. (Ord. 76- 2792, 1-2-1976) PAGE 3 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. 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 0Wer provisions or applications of this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976�X�' ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL Section 2.01. Composition. The city council consists of seveniembers. As q''in article III, fo�iYo be known as councilmembers at large, are tq;:be fjaminated 167'Q ible electors of the city at large, vi A and three, to be known as district coUncilmetnbers ar =q be nominated by eligible zK electors of their respecttue districts V � you ci(r2tttnbers I be elected by the qualified electors of the city jiFgC (�y 85 327�1 78 XN Section 2.02. Division Ir1)a CoupL,A�stncts`F4M, The cQV,n il, by ordinalu. A three council districts of substantially equal 06#,alation. Thes�;t is(ricts`Faiz:to be designated as council district A, council district B, a71))Council distriG`• (Orc)'76 2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.03. To be eligible to be elecfand 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 PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. 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, 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. The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the mayor and the other council members. The council shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December immediately following a 3-1-2005) Section 2.06. Mayor. A. Immediately following the beginning ofthe:terms of regular city election, the council shall meet and elect fr mayor and mayor pro tern for a ►f54of two years. (Or( B. The mayor is a voting member election. (Ord. 05-4152, 4.ers elected at the its members the of the city, presiding officer of thi�eo.iincil and its policy spokesperson: Q mayor may add items to the City Council{,QJ#h'cia The mayor shall present to ft city no later than February 28 an annual state of t1i =;city message. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) C. The ipay.. pro temshall act as mayor, during the absence of the mayor. (Ord. 85- 3227, �'-1985) ...r. Section 2.05:General PowCS?And Duties. All powers of the cff%gre ve ' ' in the council, except as otherwise provided by state k t law or this charter. (O� <::.; 27, 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 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. 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 consistent with state law. (Ord. 76-2792, L , Section 2.10. Vacancies. The council shall fill a vacancy law. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.11. Passage of ar membex;:q t 2005) Section 2.12'r" of its proceedings office as provided by state requires a majority vote of all the �d by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1- A. A councilmembervlay n4jf�hbld any other city office or be a city employee or elected count official while semi/g}3h the council nor hold any remunerated city office or Y 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 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) PAGE 6 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. C. A 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 elerk Johnson County Commi fl er of Elections a vaiia petition requesting that his or her name be lacedballot for that office. Unless p q g pj' otherwise provided by state law, tThe petition m 13''e'"fii not more than sixty five {65) eighty-five (85) days nor less than { a< a,s+ ty-eigHt`,•b$) days before the date of the election. and Unless otherwise providetate law, the (f I 'on must be signed by eligible electors from the candidate's disti i"tiequal in number to at 60st two (2) percent ::. . of those who voted to fill the same office at tH''`Iast regy) city electioi4but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 05A 3-1IX B. An eligible elector of the city filing with the "' '*y q%o requesting that the;.@ittidate;3 otherwise provided'fsstate I {6S) eighty-five,(85)da�5�lor1€' the eltI4y>eaI.ss o13f# by eli jb2 electors e2j'fi(;n niil the sambbffice at the la 85-3227, Section 3.02. J�com 'q;KndidatB'of an at -large council seat by ML un ommE of Ionsa petition e be, ") i; tfielft(ot for that office. Unless +4. .�;.1ti• .c;;;•Y ie petit ; must be filed not more than sixty five sixty-eight (68) days before the date of Ilia ate law, the petition must be signed to at IgWtwo (2) percent of those who voted to fill Cy.election, but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord 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 positions to be filled, there shall be a primary election held unless the council, by ordinance, chooses to have a run -off -election. (Ord, 85-3227, 3-12-1985) PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. 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 electors of the city shall be entitled to vote for each candidate. 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 at large. B. The at large council seats shall be designated on 12-1985) ARTICLE IV. CITY MANAGER Section 4.01. Appointment; In appointing a city manager, th 'council shall con. fitness of the person without regAY . to political or tenure the city manager shall reside;"I h ft.-I e city Section 4.02. A. The city manager is office at:it5<pfea'sub;:/ tenni" pn pay as as such. (Ord. 85-3227, 3- the qualifications and Nation. During his or her -2792, 1-271976) vision of the council and holds council is entitled to receive Sr B. Upon the resigri�><Qn orE�z';----�the re6fndval of the city manager, the council shall appoint an individual qualified to'p duties of city manager to serve at the pleasure of council or until a city mais 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) PAGE 8 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. Section 4.04. Duties Of City Manager. A. The city manager shall be chief administrative officer of the city and shall: (1)Insure 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. ...�> (3)Appoint the chief of the police department the approval of the city council. A (4)Supervise the chief of the police deparl including their suspension or discharge as not be subject to approval of theCjy out (5)Appoint or employ persons to ocel appointment is providg5lr)�y�I( to law the fire department with and chief of the for fiY `r partment, Such ' pervision shall y other method of (6)Supervise the ad i ti!ration,' the city`�@Pz onnel system, including the to ees appointed b the city manager determination.of the c 't1i'dens,'�t(�tl;g.#,aII crt�}tip y pp y y g (7)SupeiVie the performMce Al . ontracts for work to be done for the city, supervise all purchases Ofjnaterials ah}rjsupph s and assure that such materials and supplies are received and areif.:specified �(giality and character. f (8)Supervise and marig&�. i> ;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. PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. (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 that accurate records of all city business are m public, except as otherwise provided by state I (15)Provide necessary and reasonable cle boards within limitations of the budget. (16)Perform such other and 2005) B. The city manager, (1)Present discussion (3)Execute conttftts on 3227, 3-12-1985) Section 4.05. Ineligi as an efficient manner and made available to the and a ssional assistance to direct. (OrdK05-4152, 3-1- ai�ilprogramsto the council'and participate in any AW.atters oerta ping to the duties of the city manager. affairs of any department or the of the city manager. the city when authorized by the council. (Ord. 85- 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. PAGE 10 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. A. With the exception of the community 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. A-. B. There shall be a permanent community police citizens review board, which shall have vested in it the following minimum powers: 1. To hold at least one community forum each year views on the policies, practices, and procedures qf and 2. To make recommendations regarding city council. urpose of hearingetl;pn_' City police department,. practices, to the 2. 3. To investigate sitizeR claims "Mi-tc4,.nduct by `) rn police officers and to issue independent reports of its findings to the city council; and., -. 4. The Section 5.02. Appointment; RMIYai. The council shall, subject to the requuernents of "state law, seek to provide broad representation on all boards. The council shall establish procedures to give at least thirty days' noti&e &vacancies b9fQre they.a a filled and shall encourage applications by citizens reside i},,Council procedures for the removal of members shall be consistent with state law. (OrdrI05-4152jj3'-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. PAGE 11 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. 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 ?mount of campaign contributions made to a candidate for election to co rip )y a person as defined in this charter. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) yr ; k•: \}:\ Section 6.02. Disclosure Of The council, by ordinance, may prescribe proii'Q,'(ttres r(ring the di?' „lure of the amount, source and kind of contf&ttons receive':&(?: °expenditures ma a by (1) each candidate for election to council persons, for the purpose of aiding or securing the candidate's nstlSlnaf;electiotprd. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 6.03. Within this artjcle "conT-`&ti9rS'Sha11 be deft& as that term is defined in chapter-56 68A ("ca171T ign f(S1QRGe `t�l code"o �¢ a. d-, 95-n,�Z,-3z-2ggg) Section 5ff1.4. Violations: 4"t rescribe: 1 penalties for the violation of the The council, by"i%ytl![?ance, sh�l);p () contribution limita'flphkan (Adclosure requirements it establishes pursuant to this section; and (2) when`appx dr:ate, 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)lnitiative. The qua4fied-eligible electors have the right to propose measures to the PAGE 12 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. 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 qu gified-eligible 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) inclVfta proposition enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy o f' as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration of a law, police •.0 ajalready enacted by council. B. Limitations. (1)Subject Matter. The right of i following: (a) Any measure of an (b) The city (c) The apprOpr[aton of (d) The'levy,,of taxes (e) The issuaricrRf:general (f) The letting of (g) Salaries of city employees. or and re. ents. and revenue bonds. II not exteNdp any of the (h) Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law. (1) 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. PAGE 13 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. (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. (3)Council Repeal, Amendment And Reenactment. petition and adopted by the vote of the council wi. adopted by the voters pursuant to this article, or amended except by a vote of the peoplg U, original initiative measure. No measure re` by the vote of the council without submissio pursuant to this article, may be rAJ)lCted for people, unless provision is otherwi Q in C. Construction. (1)Scope Of Power. proposed by initiative sion to the voters, or s thereafter be repealed ss provision is8,$rerwise made in the by referendum petition and repealed t, e vv or repealed. by the voters ah h,reafter except by vote of the the o this at confer referendum petition. initiative and referendum powers upon the electors of the city. (2)lnitiative. It is It `dbd 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 7.05(AI 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 PAGE 14 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. 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 the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, �Q$ setting out in full the proposed initiative measure or citing the measure so�o be reconsidered. B. Affidavit. The city clerk shall accept the affid have signatures of one or more qualified e.ldcb appropriate petition forms to the petitioners t. filing. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared its face it appears to The city clef, i h II issue the same day the afitbs accepted for d have>a$ailable to tFt2::p..ublic, forms and affidavits suitable for the co t"gcement ot'p initiative and referendum petitiori'S'(,Otd;05, 4152, Section 7.03. s and the preparation of �_.::: A. Number Of Signaf Initi 'M.' and re �tEt{dum petitions must be signed by u n'n ber toeast twenty-five percent 25"/0 of the gaa{tfied eli i le electo":,.q t11t(tn.. Y P �- number,..�o v :' ,th the`lask regul t�ity election, but such signatures of pf; eligibfioctors shall' f t}o fe " ?than the ltiui�lber equaling t�He tgeusaHd#+ve fi .. tivadrec��4&point thirt 't Y e rip 5.33% of the population of the City of Iowa City 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-ferna_Fia"Ise falliffp to PRteF; t date shall not 1wm4d,,,te a signer's Mgn.a± ire. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have PAGE 15 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. 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 -an ffualified-eligible 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 oft. 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=12005) D. Time For Filing Initiative Petitions. SIB secured and the petition filed within six under section 7.02fAJ was filed. ((O�1a,8 4:•:x� E. Time For Filing Referendum days after final adopt{o.fili y subsequently at anyitime Of on a referendum peflign mus adoption; however, if tfi¢ p�ti was on an initiative pZfifipn must be 4fter the. 'date the affffJ_ ..it required 2ftt endum 0itlons may be filed within sixty thoug <to be reconsidered, or i ar'er M ;final adoption. The signatures h rM,' (Q(T-Ing the sixty days after such final no pdC.than two years after final adoption, the aths ditft $r the date the affidavit required under F. RevocationOf Signature.`. rlpr to 6e time a petition is filed with the city clerk, a signatory may revoke his or h'-y.-signature for any reason by filing with the city clerk a statement of his ofRbir inte tit0 revoke his or her signature. After a petition is filed a signatory may not revo'( S or her signature. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the' Iic, forms suitable for the revocation of petition signatures. (Ord.85-3227, 3-12-1985) Section 7.04. Procedure After Filing. A Validity Of A Petition A petition is valid If it contains the minimum required signatures by eligible electors in the required form and with the required content and accompanied by the Affidavit of Circulator as set forth in Section 7.03. The petition shall PAGE 16 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. be examined by the city clerk before it is accepted for filing If the petition appears valid on its face it shall be accepted for filing If it lacks the required number of signatures it shall be considered invalid and returned to the petitioners. Petitions which have been accepted for filing are valid unless written objections are filed with the city clerk within five working days after the petition is received. A. Certbficate C)f City Clerk; ArAendmpnt Within twenty d;lyq afteF a petition is filpd n g• l ♦L... �I YC L...II �..o�iR, t..s wheFeln the petits PAGE 17 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. C. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the Objections Committee's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. c. cE)Ufft o To theextent alla ..d b _feuf{_r{ayjewof 0e cni,mrik-artions Shall certiorari.he by wi# of (Ord 05 4152 19 2005) , 111 IN Win. �Vwwrinn.' Section 7.05. Action On A. Action By Council. When an suffleientva_I d the c,00�unall Sr reconsider the refef$g'inea measure and fails td`tl4pt a n if the council fails to repeal thi petition was finally etermine. measure to the qualifi 8.:eleci more than thirty days befQYe adopts the prippsed in substance or i1 'i r ui proceedings shall tef.fhJ submitted tothe voter: B. Submission To Voters. tial§Ve or referendum `peAltion has been determined rompt)y, consider.the proposed initiative measure or If the council fails to algpt a proposed initiative isure which j '.similar in substance within sixty days, or ft.rgd measI{?e within thirty days after the date the r>:•. aliclru# etet}t, hall submit the proposed or referred 1j' ;of the city as hereinafter prescribed. If at any time is �:d,.,�,�d initiative or referendum election the council eastft(Y'sor adopts a measure which is similar in Is a referred measure, the initiative or referendum the proposed or referred measure shall not be (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 7.05(AL provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than 80140 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections: PAGE 18 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. (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 7.051AL, provided that the referendum petition was filed no less than50-80 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 qualified electors at the polls and shall be ac required for "questions" in section 376.5 of purpose of the referred or proposed measu 4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.06. Results Of Election. A. Initiative. If a maj, measure vote in its't election results. The manner as rneasbie! one extent of it S-t h'a -be made available to the at theWs expense in the manner a Code. Tt4 subject matter and be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. 05- .;1 itiig Qtr a'roposed initiative otecj iinon certification of the adopted nnOsure shall` N,,treated in all respects in the same of the same kind adoptJ,:0y, the council, except as provided in morlflictingrneasures are approved by majority vote at the same ?icing the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the B. Referendum. If`a ajority.of the qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote in favor of repealing the.measi re, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results. (Or&05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of Stricter Conditions Or Requirements. The council shall may not set, except by charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum. whie.". c•e "ghee: ev more StF:^3ent than those imposed by this ^",Ft^•. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) PAGE 19 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. ARTICLE Vill. 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. Hq%#6ver, within thirty (30) days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid un et fhe provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa is filed with the council, the coji( Grl`.t.submit the amending ordinance to the voters at a special city electi93 end the a1rt_ttment does not become effective until approved by a majority of C. If a petition valid under the provisions of si FSd with the council proposing an am4p,gient to proposed amendment to the votet5?t-f3pc becomes effective if approved by a rij'ority:# Section 8.02. Charter eviv The council, using the pc� e commis§jgtt at lea i once ev The on con§isting and I twelve riittf. to the coun'614' e council S h section 8.01B df `{ a charter such amendments'fojhe vo, amendment becomes fflGfi 4152, 3-1-2005) f the code`"fl. a is filed �4`l.{{` the council mrl'sYsubmit the ion. and the amendment 05-4152, 3-1-2005) AV prescribed1[JgrticIe V, shall establish a charter review len years fq(lo;iin'g the effective date of this charter. t`( ast nine nnombers, shall review the existing charter retmend any charter amendments that it deems fit eie ercise its power of amendment pursuant to a matter recommended by the commission or submit i in the form prescribed by the commission, and an when approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05- 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: PAGE 20 Ordinance Number DateDisposition 77-2826 3-15-1977 6.01 77-2858 9-6-1977 7.058 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 2.06B, 2.08C,E, 3.01A, 6.01, 7 05-4152 3-1-2005 Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2 j�9S.; 5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03B,C4 ax Res. 07-262 8-31-2007 5.01 41 Footnote 1: The home rule chart( November 15, 1973, and by ordir section 372.9, is set o�{ti;,r;i� as 2.126, 1A, 3.02A, 4.04A, 5.02, B,C, 7. INK 8.01, 8.02 t' 'M,ijy the voters of the city on Janu fj,.a, 1976, pursuant to I.C.A. 2014-15 REVIEW As of 2/10/15 mtg. REPORT OF THE 2014-15 IOWA CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION The Commission and the Process. The Iowa City Charter Review Commission was established by the Iowa City City Council in April of 2014. Created pursuant to Section 8.02 of the Iowa City Charter, the Commission was charged with "review[ing] the existing Charter" and "recommend[ing] any Charter amendments that it deems fit." The Commission must be established by the City Council at least once every ten years. Commission members were selected by the Council and include Chairperson Andrew Chappell, Chair Pro tem Melvin Shaw, Steve Atkins, Karrie<,;Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan and Dee "�erhoef. In furtherance of its charge the Commission began meeting in April of 2101'4and has met over twenty-five (25) times. Residents have had the opportunity to p y'ticioate�Jn the process at every step. All meetings were posted and open to the,.ji lie, the Coihmission heard in -person comments and accepted written correspondeneeand the Commission held two traditional public hearings and a public meeting with'I f -active discussion:: �Tpie Commission was aided in its work by the invaluable contribiftions of City Attorney"Fleenor Dilkes and City Clerk Marian Karr. The Report. This Report is i substantive review of the Come version of the Charter that was the language of the specific an some details to explain the;;Coi will necessarilyllie omewfi`if supplemented with:" the deti Additionally, the Coiriission. that may urfkAuring th b` of of of Council and the public with a in , It supplements the "red -line" orney",;and City Clerk and sets forth lope is't[4,t the Report will provide afions, an} document of this nature nglythe Report itself should be of the Commission's meetings. ble to address questions and issues The Connssion rectahmends the adoption of an updated Preamble. The new" Preamble language is intended to emphasize that the Charter serves as a "constif4tion" for the,;' zty, that the authority of city officials is conferred upward from its`[5"e, and tfiat the authority conferred upon city officials is intended to be exercised ,iltacco'dance with the articulated principles. 2. As part of the changed Preamble, and continuing throughout the Charter, the Commission recommends removing the word "citizen" in favor of language that is more inclusive and better reflective of the intent behind the specific Charter provisions. Commission members were concerned that use of the word citizen implied that it was referring only to those Iowa City residents who are actually United States Citizens. In some places the Commission recommends the word citizen simply be replaced with "resident" and in other places that it simply be omitted. This proposed change impacts the Preamble and Sections 5.01 and 5.02. 3. The recommendation to amend Section 2.06(B) is designed to make clear that, while the Mayor has relatively little additional power in comparison to the other Council members, s/he should at the very least have the authority to add items to the City Council agenda. It is the Commission's understanding that this change very likely reflects current, and longstanding, practice, but believed it was still important to make sure future Mayors have this power if it proves necessary. 4. The recommendation to amend Section 3.01 is reflective of changes in applicable state law related to the filing of nomination petitions. Notably, those petitions now must be filed with the Johnson County,., Commissioner of Elections instead of the City Clerk. 5. The recommendation to amend remove the City Manager's specific e from the Charter. While there was;' Manager, who serves at the will;of;f severance pay, the Commission did='fib in the Charter. As a practical matter; i recto 4'0Q(A) was a result of a desire to �titl"nt to` fwo. months termination pay of necessarily'ati..objection to the City e City Council, receiving termination or believe a specific amo}ht should be listed iis,is an issue that over` h,&L,years has been negotiated by City Manager candidatesi termination pay affordet'%Iby., contract minimum significantly. Tlhis ` contract n be the better place to addressfhis matter'. 6. fold. F Review United I y'Council, wiihfhe, amount of g the Charter's"'two month seems, to the Commission, to i6s&behind the 'ecommendat onto dinend Section 5.01 is two- woid;�ixizen was 6ve iemd'to ina'J e'clear that the Citizens Police is not"eoncerned o iq%with the complaints and input of actual police relation to fJi makes clear, independently ns,Tiiis proposedcbange also reflects the current practice of ;mptmg tissemam e,0hsistent with the Board's recent name Citizens Reutew;Bogd to Citizens Police Review Board, the mends renamirig!3fhe Board the Community Police Review e Coission proposes changes to make it clear that the qi holdcAmmunity forum and to make recommendations ilcies, praetices and procedures are distinct powers. The cif there had been some concern that the Board's (,&lice policies, practices and procedures could only come in z ally raised at the annual community forum. The change 4he Board has the power to make recommendations anything raised at the community forum. 7. The recommendation to amend Section 6.03 simply updates the applicable chapter of the Iowa Code related to campaign finance. 8. Numerous changes are recommended to Article VII, related to initiative and referendum. In general, a majority of Commission members believe all eligible voters should be entitled to sign petitions for initiative and referendum. The change is meant to both be more inclusive of those who would participate in 2 city government through the initiative and referendum process and to acknowledge that, with Iowa's current same -day voter registration process, the distinction between qualified electors, those registered to vote, and eligible electors, those eligible to register to vote, has narrowed significantly. Additionally, with respect to those collecting signatures on initiative or referendum petitions, the City Attorney advised that applicable federal law now prohibited restricting eligible electors from circulating those petitions. In addition to the proposal to change the Charter to allow eligible voters to sign initiative and referendum petitions, the Commission, is recommending that the number of signatures required for said petitiong;be'increased. The minimum number of signatures required for an initiative.;;o,};§a'eferendum petition, 2500, has not changed since the Charter's inception„ Op'ite ;1a}ge increases in Iowa City's population. Moreover, the change ftQini'Iualifi64to eligible will increase significantly the number of persons.;w o'may sign Q petitions. Given these facts, the Commission is recomrnq ' 9 the Charter recjitiieahe signatures of a minimum of 3600 eligible voters. `TJ dt;number was reached'hjaking the ratio of the required number of signatures whin the Cha ter. was first 61, to the then population of the city. That ratio, 5.331%was tljei applied to the burrent Iowa City population, as detern uin&d by the latest United States Decenniat' ensus. The actual number does not up ear' rm the proposed ;Charter language so that it need p". not be updated whenever'tl e cei sus; x}umbers" obange. The methodology is, however, included in the proposed lat...M This proposed change appears in Section 7.03(A) Allowing"'all, eligible electors to sip, Ardtiative an referendum petitions led to proposed cfiai}ges in tleprocess o;n}anaging those petitions when they are }received" by the City Clerk's office Fikst, there is no longer any need for the pottrons t4 contain: space for fhe srgiiatory's birthdate, which was optional anyway. Tlispipposed change was`iide to Section 7.03(B). Second, there is no longer any need ;for th cumbersome and time-consuming process of the City Ie}'k certifying the; pfficrenC'y or insufficiency of the petitions based on whether tl o signatures can be verified'"as'qualified electors. Because eligible electors will be al le to sign petitions, the City Clerk will only be required to verify that the signator has listc&aff address within the corporate limits of Iowa City. This proposed "c`44nge" Would be accomplished by deleting the existing process described in "So"Ct164i 7.04 and replacing it with a simplified validation process modeled after Iowa Code Section 362.4, related to petitions authorized by the city code, and an objections process modeled after Iowa Code Section 44.8. These proposed changes would also necessitate minor wording changes to Section 7.05 because, under the proposed new system, a petition is considered either valid or invalid instead of sufficient or insufficient. Finally, the filing deadlines found in Section 7.05(B) are proposed to be changed to account for the fact that the City Clerk's review of petitions will take much less time than it would have under the old system. 3 The only places, with respect to initiative and referendum, where the Commission recommends the distinction between qualified and eligible electors be maintained is in Section 7.02 and in the right to vote itself. A majority of Commission members supported the idea that the initial petitioners, those who begin the formal process of initiative or referendum, still should be qualified electors. Additionally, of course, only qualified electors would be able to vote if an initiative or referendum petition led to an actual election. 9. The recommended change to Section 7.07 is meant to clarify and ensure that the only way in which City Council can make; changes to the initiative and referendum process is through amending the Charfi C Itself, Other Other Matters Considered. In addition to those,p fef`s -discussed that led to the above recommendations, the Commission also gave Serious consideration to several issues that did not lead to recommended amendments.... 4gWe of those issos, are discussed below. Numerous other issues also were discussed?` the Commission4hil these discussions, though not described here, are reflected idil e Commission's meeting jn}nutes. 1. Selection of the -Mayor. The Coimmssion spent cmisi4crable time discussing the method us, iljo,s.elect the mayi loth in its regular meetings and at the interactive public meefnig ;Some concerns., were raised with the current process, including generallyl.%,h- 'SeGfecy of or "lack, of transparency in how the Council Members choose the Mayor a d $he:inabili6 of members of the general public to vote.f n a;Mayor or otherwise,participate hill e'process. Concerns also were raised;that the process is somewhat anactif68istic and undemocratic, and that there mrglt 'be better participation in a city eleofion if there was an actual campaign f6f;,Ahe M#,br- In response to these concerns the Commission considered an amendrhent fo the Charted -that would have required that the Mayor lie elected:'duectly by the citrzeirs.. Public comment and the Commission's 'minutes will dernonstrataahat there ardstrong opinions on both sides of this issue. In the end, f}i63najorifyyo,f the Commission decided not to recommend an ...dment to tt1e; Charter gJ�..ahis issue, believing the current system, despite concerns, has served,its purpose and worked well for the City. The Commission does eecmmend sftoi)gly, however, that the City Council spend some time studying%this, issue on`ts own and attempt to come up with some change to the current process o£;SelQcting the Mayor iu order to make it more open, inclusive and transparefit;;;1bsent such a change in practice, the City Council should expect this issue to arise again when the Charter is reviewed in ten years, if not sooner. 2. Number of Districts, The Commission discussed whether to amend the Charter to change the number of council districts from three to four, or even from three to seven. The concern presented was that the city's geographic and population growth had made the existing districts too large to be manageable or representative. No recommendation was made to increase the number of districts, however, because the associated decrease in geographic area and population represented by district council members would have been relatively small. Also, 4 overall there was a strong preference to maintain the current majority of council members being at -large. 3. Election of District Council Members. The Commission spent a great deal of time discussing the current system for electing district council members and the fact that only residents of the district may vote in a district primary but all voters may vote on the district in the general election. An amendment was considered that would have allowed only residents of a particular district to vote in that general election district race. In support of this amendment was the idea that it would alleviate voter confusion over the current system and it may also engender stronger connections between the district electornt'e1hd the district -only council members. Support for such a change was,41s,' ound in the fact that district candidates would then be able to run sriillet ",;more economical campaigns focusing only on their respective districts.°"Plie majority of the Commission did not recommend such an amendment%! h gh, because''of a concern that it might promote parochialism among districts'%and from a positive recognition that the current system allows each citize'ri46 claim a stake in all``sQven council races. There also were concerns from some`'bbinmissioi ;members abo t.the possibility that, if a change was made,,a district council nxetnl`ei• elected by and representing only a third of the city c6J 1 er}.d up being sele'C ed by the City Council as Mayor. 4. Council Member Colz comments indicating that ti Council is too l6t ;-, floes not City Council;%`and maydisco Council. <Tdeed, the e$nse salary is too''lo y;,, No cl i3ngf RI �tliioil , as opposed to" a ssiti ; At the'wejy, least, study tlis;issue 'and. to ton; The Commission received several public •rerif e6mpensatiWiAor members of the City ,t the<amottnt;.of timc`;required to serve on the sotielow wa`geearners from running for City of 4 'd, Commission also was that the current proposed to the Charter, however, because the sue'lolter left to the legislative actions of the sauge'tothe Charter as recommended by the ommission encourages the City Council to insider reinstating the ordinance requiring for compensation based on increases in the cost of 5. Aliernatives;f ayPrimary Elections. The Commission discussed alternatives to the systeii of;pr mary elections described in Section 3.02, including instant run-off electi6tss-zCriven the current state of Iowa election law, however, possible .:.,, changes are limited and no changes were recommended.. Conclusion. The Commission has appreciated and thoroughly enjoyed this opportunity to review the Iowa City City Charter and it is pleased to present its recommendations to the City Council for consideration and action. While there was not unanimity on every issue, the recommendations as a whole come to the City Council upon the unanimous vote of the Commission. Pursuant to Section 8.02 of the Charter, the City Council may either adopt the Commission's recommended amendments by ordinance or may put them on the ballot for consideration by the voters of Iowa City. The Commission recommends F the City Council adopt the proposed Charter Amendments by ordinance. If, however, the City Council believes there is a recommendation, or recommendations, that should be presented to the voters in an election, then the Commission recommends the City Council send only that recommendation to the voters and all other proposed amendments be adopted by ordinance. Respectfully submitted this day of March, 2015. IOWA CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Andrew Chappell, Chairperson On behalf of Commission Members: Chair Pro tem Melvin Shaw Steve Atkins Kerrie Craig Karen Kubby Mark Schantz Anna Moyers Stone Adam Sullivan Dee Vanderhoef ,:..._.__...... Marian Karr From: City of Iowa City <webmaster@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:13 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: COMMENTS SOUGHT ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO IOWA CITY'S CHARTER Contact: Marian Karr Contact Phone: (319) 356-5041 COMMENTS SOUGHT ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO IOWA CITY'S CHARTER - Issued by: City Clerk Mailing Liable): General City News Originally Posted 2/12/201512:13:13 PM The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Charter, amendments recommended by the Commission must either be adopted by the City Council or placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters. A community discussion on proposed Charter amendments will be held Tuesday, February 24, 2015, at 6:30 p.m., in Harvat Hall, City Hall (410 East Washington St.). Copies of a red -lined version, showing potential changes, can be found on the City website: www.icciov.org/citycharter The Charter Review Commission invites everyone to be a part of this public discussion. Electronic comments: cltycharter(alowa-city.oro. Written comments can be addressed to: City Clerk, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 View this article on the ICGov Web Site: httD://www.icoov.oro/apes/news/?newslD=10299 This media release was sent to: Marian-karrRiowa-citv.ow Do not reply directly to this a-maill It is produced from an automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you have a question or comment about this information, please contact the Individual(s) listed in the release. • Unsubscribe or edit your subscription details. • Visit our lobs page for employment opoortunilies. '• View more news from the City of Iowa City.