HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-3-2015 Charter Review CommissionPUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS I
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, March 3, 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 two meetings on 2/24/15
3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF
4. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM
5. REVIEW RED -LINE VERSION CHARTER
6. REVIEW DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
8. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE - (7:45 AM unless specified)
Y March 9
March 24
[Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015]
9. ADJOURNMENT
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Morning meeting
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 24, 2015 — 7:45 A.M.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins (via phone), Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby,
Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Mark Schantz
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
a. Minutes of the Meetings on 02/10/15 — Chappell asked if there were any
proposed changes to the minutes. Kubby stated she had spoken only to
Caroline Dieterle, and not Carol deProsse, regarding their editorial and asked
that page 1 of the minutes be corrected to reflect that. Craig questioned if the
second full paragraph on page 2 should read 3,600 signatures and note 2,500.
City Atty. Dilkes stated that she used the 2,500 as an example. Vanderhoef
suggested the number be deleted and replaced with "required." Majority agreed
with both changes.
b. Correspondence from: 1) Margaret and Charles Felling; 2) Martha Hampel
Shaw moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Kubby seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. Chappell noted correspondence from Margaret and
Charles Felling and Martha Hampel. Kubby responded to questions regarding the Hampel letter
requesting reconsideration of the decision to base the increase in initiative and referendum
petition signatures on population growth.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
None.
REVIEW OF RED -LINE VERSION CHARTER:
Members then began to review the red -line version of the Charter.
On page 17, Section 7.05 — Action on Petitions, Craig noted that in the second sentence says,
"If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure, and fails to adopt a measure which is
similar in substance within 60 days." She asked if this shouldn't be an 'or' instead of an 'and'
here. Dilkes noted that this wording has been this way for as long as she can remember, and
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Morning meeting
Page 2
she questions making such a change. She added that use of the word 'fails' makes this an 'and'
situation.
Next Craig asked about page 18, Section 7.07. She suggested they consider changing the title
of this section as it is no longer a Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions, but instead
it should be'Different' Conditions or something similar. Members discussed this briefly,
agreeing that the removal of 'Stricter'works instead.
Kubby noted that there was a guest opinion today in the Press -Citizen and that one of the things
it referred to was the removal of the first sentence of the Preamble — "That the government of
Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the responsibility for it." She added that she
needs to think about this and how it could be incorporated into the newly suggested Preamble.
Members started to discuss this, with Vanderhoef asking if they haven't captured most of this in
the first red -line version. Kubby again stated that she would like to think about this suggested
change before making a decision.
Chappell noted that he truly wants this to be the Commission's report, which he wants to hear
corrections and suggestions and any other comments Members may have. Craig stated that
she thought it was very well written and that Chappell should take pride in his work. Vanderhoef
agreed, stating that she thought it well represented what they have been talking about. Sullivan
agreed. Craig noted that she only had one thing — that her name was misspelled in the report.
Shaw asked if his middle initial could be added, as there are several Melvin Shaws living in Iowa
City. He asked that it be shown as Melvin O. Shaw. Sullivan asked that his middle initial,
without the period — B — be added, as well.
Kubby suggested that on page 4, under'Selection of the Mayor,' that they remove the word
'some' in the fifth line, where it says, '...that the City Council spend some time studying this
issue. Then on page 5, # 3, Kubby spoke to the last point about if a district member was
elected by and representing only a third of the city that that would be weird if they became
mayor. She added that if they had gone with true districts, they would have most likely said that
the selected mayor had to be an at -large council member — that she would have promoted this.
Chappell asked if Kubby is suggesting they delete the sentence here or if she wants to add a
reference here. Discussion continued, with Chappell asking Members if they are comfortable
leaving this sentence — the last sentence in paragraph # 3 on page 5. Moyers -Stone stated that
she is okay with deleting it, as she believes they captured this in the 'Selection of the Mayor'
section. Chappell asked Atkins if he is okay with this and he stated he was. Shaw also agreed
to this change.
Dilkes reported she sent an email to Chappell, regarding a correction on page 3, second
paragraph, eighth line up from the bottom — related to petitions authorized by the City code.
She stated that this comes from the State code, and therefore it can be worded such that this is
'by the State code,' removing the reference to 'City.'
Sullivan stated that he really appreciates the issues that they decided not to take up and that
there is clear rationale for why they did this in the report, and believes they are given some
voice in the report. The conversation then turned to how the Commission wants these latest
changes shown in the next draft version. A majority requested the next draft show the redlined
changes.
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Morning meeting
Page 3
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM:
*Harvat Hall — February 24 (6:30 P.M.)
Kubby stated that she does not see this meeting as a back -and -forth, but that some
clarifications may need to be made. Karr stated that red -line versions will be available for the
public, as well as the agenda. Sullivan asked the meeting schedule be available agenda, and
Karr stated that they can announce the meeting schedule as well. Chappell asked if he should
make any further remarks, and Kubby stated that basically they should say that what is
available is the latest red -line version and then explain changes made at today's meeting, and
that they are there to hear feedback on this version. They can then make a remark as to the
meeting schedule and changes made.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (All meetings are 7:46 AM in the
Helling Conference Room:
February 24 — 6:30 P.M. Public Forum
March 3 — Chappell noted that they can discuss the red -line version at this meeting and
see if there are any final changes after hearing from the public at the February 24 forum.
Karr noted that Craig will not be at this meeting.
March 10 — Vanderhoef stated that she will not be at this meeting. Karr asked if the
group would like to set a different meeting date, and Kubby suggested skipping the 10t'
and having the March 24 meeting as everpne will be present. After a brief discussion,
Members agreed to change the March 10t meeting to March 9�h. Chappell stated that
at the meeting on March 9 they will plan to vote on both the red -line version and the final
report.
March 24
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried
8-0, Schantz absent.
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Page 4
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
o
0
O
O
O
o
0
0
O
O
O
.
.
.
a
con
M
-4
w
o
W
0
0
0
0
tj
NAME
EXP.
w
W
v
o
N
o>
co
w
0
A
o0
o
N
w
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P
A
A
A
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
411/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1115
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1115
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
411/15
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 24, 2015
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
TERM
j
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0
0
0
0
N
®a
Q
a
a
ha
N
a
N
W
W
W
NAME
EXP.
w
rn
®
W
ha
o
a
w
coo
Na
A.
A
f7f
N
w
N
w
w
0w
N
fJ1
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
Schantz
E
O/E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
Moyers
E
Stone
Adam
411115
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key.,
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Evening forum
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION — COMMUNITY FORUM
FEBRUARY 24, 2016 — 6:30 P.M.
CITY HALL, HARVAT HALL
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -
Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Steve Atkins, Mark Schantz
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
None
OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR:
Chappell called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. He welcomed everyone to the Charter
Review Commission's third community forum. Chappell gave some brief opening remarks,
noting that the Commission has met in excess of 24 times and he thanked those from the public
who have attended some of these meetings. He noted that at this point the Commission's
recommendations are shown in the red -lined version of the Charter. Chappell noted the
'Upcoming Meeting Schedule' portion of the agenda did not include their next meeting will be
March 3rd at 7:45 A.M., where the Members will review tonight's discussion as they continue to
wrap things up.
INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Chappell then asked Members to introduce themselves.
Chappell asked that speakers state their name for the record and to limit comments to five
minutes or less. Karr noted that there is a sign -in sheet at the podium.
Tom Carsner, 1627 College Ct. PI., stated that he began this process with the thought that the
biggest problem that the Charter Review Commission can address is the sense of citizens
feeling left out of participation in City government. He added that this is very evident when you
look at voting numbers in elections. There is a lack of participation in the system because
people do not feel their voice is being heard, or if they do raise their voice, that it doesn't matter
and isn't being listened to or processed. Carsner stated that he does not believe the red -lined
version meets much of this issue. He added that he would advocate for a strong, elected
mayor/council form of government. Moving on, Carsner commended the Commission for their
choice of reverting back to 'eligible' electors being able to sign initiative and referendum
petitions, but at the same time he does not like seeing the required number of signatures raised.
He encouraged Members to reconsider this issue. Carsner then addressed the issue of direct
district elections. He encouraged Members to consider allowing only the voters in a said district
to vote and elect, both in the primary and in the general, three members of the council. He
added that he believes the best part of this is that it raises issues that are important to people in
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Evening forum
Page 2
different areas of the city, directly to the council level, without being taken through the filter of
the city manager's office or a committee.
Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., asked for an explanation of the absence of two of the
Commission Members. Chappell responded that those two Members are presently out of state
and unable to attend. Dieterle responded that these two Members must have thought it was
okay to be out of state at the time of this most important forum. She then spoke to the red -lined
version of the Charter, noting that the current Preamble contains the following: "We the people
of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Iowa and the
principle of self-determination do hereby adopt this Charter and confer upon it the full Home
Rule powers of a Charter City. By this action we adopt the following principles, and it's point
three, the conduct of City business and conformity with due process, equal protection under the
laws, and those liberties protected by the Constitution of the United States, the State of Iowa,
and local ordinances." Continuing, Dieterle noted that the text of the red -lined version ignores
Chapter 362.4 of the Code of Iowa regarding 'Petitioning.' She read further, noting that
nowhere does it say a petition will be checked signature by signature. Dieterle shared a
handout of her comments with the Commission; and distributed correspondence from Carol
deProsse.
Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., stated that he was at an earlier meeting and he remembers hearing
people say, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' and he got the impression that people didn't want to
make too many changes to the Charter at that time. He questioned why the Preamble was
changed so dramatically from the previous Charter. Chappell stated that he can't speak for the
entire Commission, but that in general the sense was that the changed Preamble did a better
job of capturing what the Commission wanted it to capture. He added that he does not think
anyone viewed it as having major substantive changes. Chappell continued, noting that the
author of the revamped Preamble is not present today. Gussin asked what it was that the
previous Preamble did not capture. Kubby stated that basically the conversation began over
wanting to remove the word 'citizen' from the Preamble so that it spoke to a broader
constituency of those living under the Charter and how local government affects all of the
community. She asked Gussin if there are specific parts he dislikes, and he responded that he
likes the part that says the Charter is for all of the citizens and sharing responsibility, but that he
did not get this sense from the red -lined version.
Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., addressed Members stating that she also has a problem
with the Preamble. She stated that when you read the old version, it makes sense — things are
pretty transparent. However, when she read the new Preamble, she was confused. She
believes the Commission needs to make the Preamble clearer, even with the intended changes.
Mary Murphy, 890 Park Place, thanked the Members for the time they have spent on the City
Charter. She stated that she does not believe that this particular draft goes far enough in
reflecting the community's values. She noted that she did submit comments to the Commission
and that her comments were not even discussed by them. She stated that it appeared input
was restricted to just four issues and that other topics were not addressed. Murphy added that
she found this to be very disappointing. She also commented on the input process and that
perhaps it did not go far enough. With all of the technology available, Murphy stated that the
City could access these other avenues for receiving input. She spoke to the issue of
anonymous input / telephone calls about not electing the mayor. Murphy then asked that the
City Charter draft contain an ethics and a conflicts of interest provision. She stated that she
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Evening forum
Page 3
believes there is a huge potential in Iowa City for corruption and she brought up the issue of the
City granting TIF's to LLCs with anonymous members. She questioned the gap analyses that
the City performs before granting such TIF's, stating that these are no longer available online
and are being done by a not -for -profit corporation. Murphy spoke further to the use of TIF's and
how she sees an increase in such use, leading to possible corruption where these TIF's would
be used as 'slush funds.' A strong ethics or conflicts of interest provision is needed in her
opinion.
Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., stated that the red -lined version does include one of the
changes she would like to see and she then read from a prepared statement. She noted that at
an earlier meeting, one of the Members stated that 'citizens who are not registered to vote are
not eligible to be chosen for jury duty.' Hampel stated that this is actually incorrect. According
to the Iowa Code, Chapter 6.07A, Juries — source lists include voter registration lists, persons
with valid driver's license, and customers of public utilities, such as water. Continuing, Hampel
noted that she finds this disturbing that the Commission would rely on assumptions and hearsay
when making decisions as important as changes to the Charter. Another assumption that the
Commission has made, according to Hampel, is that people who have had their signature struck
from a petition, for initiative and referendum, are not registered to vote. Hampel noted that she
decided to try something for herself — she took the 26 applications that were received for the
Charter Review Commission, which were submitted to the City, and she scrutinized the
signatures on them, similar to what the City Clerk would do for a petition. Of the nine selected
applications, Hampel noted that one did not pass the verification process in that according to the
Auditor's office is not registered to vote. Continuing to read from her prepared statement,
Hampel proposed that the Commission take a vote on whether or not this one Member, who is
not registered to vote, should remain on the Commission. At this point Hampel asked the
Commission if they would be interested in taking such a vote at this time. The Commission
responded in the negative. Continuing, Hampel spoke to Census population numbers and the
increase in signatures necessary in initiative and referendum petitions. She urged the
Commission to drop the 'qualified elector' requirement and to not increase the number of
required signatures. She also urged them to adopt the petition verification process outlined in
the Iowa Code.
Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., again addressed the Commission, speaking first to how
the three districts handle their own candidates. She stated that she would like to see a change
to this. She stated that she believes the government should be as accessible as possible, to as
many people as possible, so that every citizen of Iowa City feels that they are important and that
their voice can be heard.
Bob Elliott, 1108 Dover St., spoke to what several of the previous speakers have, noting that he
is in disagreement with them regarding the change from 'qualified' to 'eligible' on initiative and
referendum petitions. He spoke to the importance of this type of petition and how it can tie the
council's hands on what they must do. He believes that 'qualified' voter is better. He then
thanked the Commission for their hard work.
Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., returned to the podium, stating that she would like a chance
to rebut. Chappell asked if she could wait until other's have had a chance to speak at least
once and Dieterle responded in the negative. She continued, stating that there is in the Charter
a provision that does tie the Council, and that one is to amend the Charter by the citizens. She
suggested that perhaps this is what the citizens need to do — amend the Charter themselves.
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Evening forum
Page 4
Regenia Bailey, 310 Reno St., thanked the Commission for their work. She also expressed her
appreciation for the new suggested Preamble, though she stated she does not feel particularly
strong about it, that it was more poetic than the original one. Bailey stated that she also
appreciates the replacement of the word 'citizen' with 'resident.' She believes this sends a very
important message to the community. As to the district election issue, Bailey stated that she
has some strong feelings about this, having been a part of it herself. She shared her views on
why the current system is so important.
Evan Fales, 1215 Oakcrest, stated that he is puzzled by Bob Elliott's comments. He spoke to
the point of a petition that it is to either express or discover the will of the people with respect to
some matter of concern. He again questioned Elliott's comments on 'tying the council's hands'
on a matter. He stated that the council should welcome the voice of the people with respect to
matters that somebody has taken enough trouble to produce a petition and to obtain the
necessary signatures. He added that this is all the more reason, in his opinion, to lower the
required number of signatures.
Joseph Dobrian, 1015 Second Ave., stated that he believes what Bob Elliott was suggesting is
that there are different types of petitions — those that call for action and those that mandate
action. He spoke about a teacher from City High who would tell students that petitions were
'stupid,' and he added that some people will sign anything. Dobrian stated that he would think
they would want a high bar when it comes to petitions that require action, so that not just
anybody can create one and not just any signatures on it will suffice. He added that he
mistrusts democracy. He believes that petitions need to be a little bit harder to make actionable,
and requiring more signatures goes towards this.
Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., approached the podium again. Chappell then asked that everyone
be allowed to speak first before others return to the podium for a second time.
Shelton Stromquist, 316 Myrtle Ave., stated that he appreciates all the time and effort put into
this process by the Commission. He then spoke to his main concern, which is a real crisis in
terms of democratic governance, particularly at the city level, due to the low levels of
participation and engagement. Speaking to district representation, Stromquist stated that this
does go to the heart of local representative government. He stated that in his opinion piece in
the Press -Citizen he talks about some of the history of how cities have come to use at -large
representation. Continuing, Stromquist spoke to representation by district and the possibility of
greater access on the part of citizens to the affairs of how they are governed at the local level.
With Iowa City's growing diversity, he noted that it is even more important that all residents feel
connected to the political process. Stromquist believes that this would be more likely under
district representation. In his view at -large elections privilege elites who have the resources and
the citywide visibility to run on a citywide basis. This then skews the electoral process away
from greater democratic participation and essentially disfranchises voters and candidates who
have fewer resources, and whose primary visibility is local. Stromquist continued to speak to
the need for increased participation, with less barriers, and how this would happen faster with
district representation. He believes all seven council members should be elected from districts.
Stromquist noted that he is not a fan of non -partisan elections either. He believes candidates
should be able to identify their party lines, if they have one. Stromquist wrapped up his
comments by stating that he believes they should have a directly -elected mayor and district-
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Evening forum
Page 5
elected city councilors who actually govern the city. This would mean getting rid of powerful city
manager, who Stromquist believes have too much power.
Aleksey Gurtovoy, 4362 E. Court St., spoke to the Commission on the petition signature issue.
He stated that there are two petition processes — one to change the Charter and one to change
City code. He further explained the differences and how State code plays into these issues.
Gurtovoy also spoke to the required number of signatures and how this formula was arrived at.
He then asked why the City is keeping the two different petition processes, and if the State code
is too permissive. He stated that some of the Commission members have made comments to
the effect that they need to have a representative democracy and that this is why they have
voted the way they have. He noted that public support is overwhelmingly for making changes
here and yet the Commission has opted to not go that route. He stated that this will end up on
the ballot if the Commission decides to not recommend this change.
Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., returned to the podium, stating that he believes three issues were
raised by the previous speaker, one being illogical. He addressed these issues, noting that
making it easier to petition and put the possibility of change before the council or on the ballot is
a safeguard against a powerful city government that ignores the wishes of the people.
Secondly, in regards to registration. Gussin noted that citizens can now register on the day of
an election. He stated that it does not make sense then to say someone who is not registered
cannot sign a petition.
Evan Fales, 1215 Oakcrest, returned stating that he agrees with a previous speaker about
distrust of democracy. He added that there is no guarantee that the electorate will make wise
decisions, nor that the council will make wise decisions either. He added that he believes they
need to make it as easy as possible for people to express their will and that they need to trust
the people of Iowa City.
Martha Hempel, 4362 E. Court St., spoke again stating that she wanted to clarify that an
initiative and referendum petitions does not tie the hands of city council. She added that if the
council disagrees with the initiative or referendum they can simply say they don't like it and then
it goes to a vote of the people. Hampel suggested if the commission was going to use
population it should reflect residents over 18 years of age. Also, in regards to the increase in
required signatures, Hampel stated that she would like the Commission to comment on why
they are using population growth to increase this number. Sullivan responded that the
Commission did consider tying the increase to the number of people voting in city elections over
the past 40-plus years, but that there wasn't any interest in this. Chappell stated that the
Commission will have a final report that will contain some of the reasoning behind their
recommendations.
Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., stated that she believes Hampel's suggestion is excellent,
and that she believes the Commission should share their opinions, as well.
Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., spoke to the district issue briefly, adding that the more
people you have from more backgrounds, the more information that you can gather. She also
addressed the directly -elected mayor issue. She asked what large progressive city in the
United States has a city manager form of government, adding that if Iowa City wants to be
progressive and move forward, they need to decide which path is going to get them there the
best.
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Evening forum
Page 6
Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., stated that she just wanted to reiterate that there is a room
full of people and that many cannot make the 7:45 A.M. meetings to discuss these issues.
Therefore, she believes it is very important to hear feedback from the Commission as to how
they arrived at their decisions. Chappell responded, stating that he is not going to try to capture
a year long process in a five-minute sound bite. He added that meetings are public and minutes
are available, and that the Members have spent the time doing their best in making these
recommendations. He added that the forum is to gather input from the public, and that he
appreciates all of the feedback they have heard.
Correspondence was received from: Carol deProsse; Pam Michaud; Caroline Dieterle; and
Martha Hampel (revised with illustrations).
Sullivan moved to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The
motion carried 7-0, Atkins and Schantz absent.
Kubby asked if they could have information regarding the ethics and conflict of interest piece
that was brought up during tonight's discussion. She would like to have this for the next
meeting, such as what the current policy is. The City Attorney will follow-up.
UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE (All meetings are 7:45 AM in the Helling Conference
Room:
March 3
March 9
March 24
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 P.M. Vanderhoef seconded the motion.
The motion carried 7-0, Atkins and Schantz absent.
Charter Review Commission
February 24, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
TERM
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
.
.
�
ha
NAME
EXP.
co
W
V
O
A
N
N
N
O
W
W
O
A
N
W
-s
O
N
N
s
A
.
A
a
A
a
A
a
P.
.
A
_a
A
a
A
.
A
.a
?
N
A
a
A
a
A
.
A
�
A
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
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
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
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 24, 2015
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
TERM
j
a
o
0
0
o
N
N
o
w
w
\
\
j
w
NAME
EXP.
w
C.
o
A
w
c®o
p
A
W
A
f)t
N
f7t
N
fA
fA
fdr
N
M
U1
4/1115
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/E
Schantz
E
O/E
Melvin
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
411/15
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
Moyers
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key.,
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Date: February26, 2015
To: Charter Review Commission
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
TV1
Re: Conflict of Interest
City officers and employees are governed by a number of conflict of interest laws, both
statutory and common, and city policies. The City Attorney is responsible for giving her
opinion on potential conflicts of interest. This memo will provide an overview of those
laws and policies we encounter most frequently.
1. Iowa Code Section 362.5 prohibits city officers and employees from having a direct or
indirect interest in a contract with the City unless the contract falls within one of the
enumerated exceptions (e.g. a contract that has been publicly bid, less than 5% of stock
held by officer/employee and his/her spouse and immediate family members). An interest
in a contract includes the interest of a spouse and dependent children. The City uses a
number of tools to avoid running afoul of this provision. Members of the City Council and
all boards and commissions complete a list of their business interests and the City
maintains a directory of those businesses which is checked prior to the purchase of goods
and services. Contracts for the purchase of commodities and services and requests for
proposals include a certification by the party with whom the City is contracting or the
proposing party that no employee or officer of the City has an interest in the contract or
proposal that is prohibited by Section 362.5. A contract entered into in violation of Section
362.5 is void. Section 721.11 of the Iowa Code makes the violation of Section 362.5 a
criminal offense.
2. Chapter 68B of the Iowa Code, entitled Government Ethics and Lobbying, applies to city
employees and city officials. It includes prohibitions on outside employment and activities
that create conflicts of interest such as the use of city resources, receipt of money or other
consideration for performance of public duties and participation in an outside activity that is
subject to the control/review of the employee or officer. Subchapter III prohibits employees
and officers from accepting gifts from persons who have an interest in the actions of the
employee or officer. Violation of these provisions is a crime and the violator may be
reprimanded, suspended, dismissed or otherwise sanctioned. A complaint against a local
official or employee can be filed with the County Attorney.
3. Chapter 68A of the Iowa Code governs campaign ethics, including required disclosure of
campaign contributions and prohibitions on the use of City resources for political purposes.
It is enforced by the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. A willful violation of the
provisions of Chapter 68A is a crime and a conviction is grounds for removal from office
under Chapter 66 of the Iowa Code. In addition to the Attorney General and County
Attorney, 5 registered City voters may petition the Court for removal.
4. Pursuant to Chapter 362.6 of the Iowa Code, a measure voted on is invalid if the vote of
the conflicted officer was determinative to the outcome.
February 26, 2015
Page 2
5. The common law also prohibits conflicts of interest. The Iowa Supreme Court, In Wilson
v. City of Iowa City, 165 N.W.2d 813 explained the common law rule as follows: "We doubt
if any rule of law has more longevity than that which condemns conflict between the public
and private interests of government officials and employees nor any which has been more
consistently and rigidly applied.... These rules whether common law or statutory, are based
on moral principles and public policy. They demand complete loyalty to the public and seek
to avoid subjecting a public servant to the difficult, and often insoluble, task of deciding
between public duty and private advantage.... It is not necessary that this advantage be a
financial one. Neither is it required that there be a showing the official sought or gained such
a result. It is the potential of conflict of interest which the law desires to avoid." The analysis
of whether a person has a conflict of interest under the common law is an exercise that
requires an examination of all relevant facts.
6. Section 11 of the City's Personnel Policies addresses conflicts of interest and prohibits
employees "from engaging in any conduct which represents, or could be reasonably
interpreted to represent a conflict of interest" and taking any action "which might result in, or
create the appearance of using public office for private gain, giving preferential treatment to
any person, or losing impartiality in conducting city business." Outside employment, gifts,
impartiality and use of information and public property are specifically addressed. Violation
is grounds for discipline or discharge. Section 9(i) of the Personnel Policies includes a strict
anti -nepotism provision which prohibits direct or indirect supervision of a family member and
disqualifies family members of Department Heads and Division Heads from all city
employment.
7. There are other conflict of interest laws that are specific to certain issues. For example,
federal regulations governing the CDBG and HOME funds that the City receives and
allocates include rules that prohibit persons who participate in the decision making process
for the allocation of funds from having a financial interest in, or benefitting from, an activity
that is assisted by HOME or CDBG funds. A second example is the provision of the Iowa
Code governing conflicts of interest in urban renewal matters. Iowa Code Section 403.16
requires certain disclosures and prohibits employees and officers from participating in any
action which directly or specifically affects property in which the officer or employee has an
interest. Violation of the provision constitutes misconduct in office. Willful misconduct in
office is grounds for removal under Chapter 66 of the Iowa Code.
I will be available at your meeting on March 3 to answer questions
Cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk
As the Initiative and Referendum section of the Charter is being changed to allow eligible voters to sign
petitions there should be some additional changes to Section 7.03 to reflect that change.
1. Removal of the "signed by electors equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the
number of persons who voted in the last regular city election." The number of voters is no
longer a relevant benchmark since eligible status is now required.
2. Change the percentage of signatures needed to reflect the actual pool of eligible voters (those
residents eighteen years of age and older) in the city of Iowa City. The percentage should be
based on most recent Census number of residents that are eighteen and older.
3. Use our methodology of basing the percentage of signatures needed on the original Charter's
minimum number of 2,500 signatures. The number of residents eighteen and older in 1970 was
35,232 (total population was 46,850). The percentage found by 2500/35,232 is 7.1%.
Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation of Signatures.
A. Number Of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by eligible electors
equal in number to seven point one zero percent (7.10%) of the population of the City of Iowa
City residents that are 18 years of age or older as determined by the most recent United States
Decennial Census, rounded to the nearest hundred.
Using the 2010 Census data indicating a population of 57,751 residents of Iowa City eighteen years of
age or older, the 7.1% required for number of petition signatures would be 4,100.
Census data provided by Iowa City Public Library Information Services.
Submitted by Karrie Craig
February 27, 2015
1
Dear Charter Commission Members:
Reading the minutes of the Charter Commission's discussion about'eligible'
v'qualified' voters and the resulting decision to drop 'qualified', but concomitantly
increase the number of required signatures required to 5.33% of the present
population of Iowa City, leaves me with negative feelings about the Commission's
efforts to date. I hope this 5.33% idea has been discarded by the time of your
receipt of this correspondence and that a unanimous vote of the Commission will
also drop the word 'qualified.'
I am registered as Carol V. deProsse, but have many legal documents
referring to me as Carol W. deProsse, and I sign checks with no middle initial.
Despite these discrepancies I have been registered to vote since 1972 and have
voted in every City and other election since that time. Therefore, I could sign a
petition as Carol deProsse, which would be likely because until I actually looked, I
had forgotten that I was registered to vote as Carol V. deProsse, and my signature
would be tossed out. Many people go by nicknames and sign nearly everything
that way; it is entirely likely that they could sign their nickname on a petition
rather than the name on the voter registration list and have their name discounted
even though they were registered to vote. There are few signatures going on
petitions that are those of people not registered to vote, especially since people
signing are vowing that they are registered.
The decision to require 3,600 signatures appears to have been reached after
a protracted discussion that had everyone tossing around a bunch of figures until
the number of 3,600 was settled upon, without any apparent rationale other than
one member figured out that it represented the percentage of population that the
early 1970's Charter did when they chose the figure of 2,500. However, whatever
rationale they had for their figure can be found nowhere in the history of the
original Charter and I seriously doubt that those members would have said, "For
lack of any better reason, let's go with 5.33% of the population."
Furthermore, it was not comforting to listen to the tapes of your meetings
and hear one Commissioner say, "Oh wow, I was just going to throw darts! Laugh,
laugh", to find a number at which to place the number of required signatures. We
are talking about the Home Rule Charter, not the cartoon pages of the local papers,
and it is serious business to many of us; I would like to believe the Commission
found it that way, too.
All this monkeying around trying to settle on the number of signatures
required on petitions under Initiative and Referendum seems more than silly, given
that citizens can propose to amend the Charter on their own initiative by following
Chapter 372 of the Code of Iowa, which is entitled Organization of City
Government; it is the Chapter Code that grants Cities the authority to adopt a
Horne Rule Charter; it also sets forth how a Home Rule Charter can be amended
other than by the calling of a Charter Commission. Chapter 372.11 is also included
in the Home Rule Charter under Article VIII.
372.11 AMENDMENT TO CHARTER:... 3. If a petition valid under
the provisions of section 362.4 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.
362.4 PETITION OF ELIGIBLE ELECTORS. 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 election, but not less than ten persons, unless otherwise
provided by state law. The petition shall include the signatures of the petitioners,
a statement of their place of residence, and the date on which they signed the
petition. The petition shall be examined 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 returned to the petitioner. 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. The objection
process in section 44.8 shall be followed.
Ten percent of the number of persons who voted in the last City election
(10,936) would require 1,094 signatures on a petition to amend the Charter if one
were to be undertaken between now and the next City election. I would advise that
the Commission simply change the Charter to require ten percent of the persons
who voted at the last election and save citizens the effort and the City money by
not having to hold an election, to amend the Charter to read this way.
I can think of no reason for some Commission members trying so
strenuously to impede Iowa City voters' right to petition their government. If that
is your aim, it is also your responsibility to articulate such and have it recorded in
your minutes for any future reference.
And while you are about your business of updating the Charter, please
make the three district seats reflect the wishes of those living & voting in those
districts and not that of all voters across the City. This would be a much fairer way
of having district representation, which is currently diminished by the fact that
voters in other districts can conceivably outvote those living within the districts
and therefore elect the district Councilor against the desires of those living within .
the district. Talk about making one's vote not count for anything ... _
FEB 2 3 2015
Due to having surgery on the day before I will be unable to attend your
meeting on February 24.
Thank you.
Carol deProsse
Member of the Iowa City City Council 1973-1979
1401 Burry Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246-4534
319.337.0694
'-" 2 3 U61
Marian Karr
From: Pam Michaud <iowastay@gmaii.com>
lent: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:19 PM
i o: City Charter
Subject: Charter review of District voting and Petition, Referendum
Iowa City should have 5 Districts.
Each voter votes directly for only their own District's representative councilor plus 2 at -large candidates.
The whole city electorate could vote for two at -large candidates.
Eligible vs qualified voters to sign initiatives, petitions, etc.
New students and working adults arrive every year in Iowa City, but elections are not held yearly. Newcomers
may have moved into an apartment building and become part of their neighborhood, bought a condo or
residence, but not have registered to vote. They may learn much about some community issues.
Non -registered Iowa Citizens should be able to sign a petition or referendum to City Govermnent.
Thank you,
Pamela Michaud
109 S. Johnson St.
Towa City, IA 52240
February 24, 2015
Statement for Final Forum of Chaucer Conirmission
9'he red -lined version of the Charter for tonight's discussion contains the
following words in the new version of the Preamble:
"We, the people of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the Constitution and statutes
of the State of Iov✓a and the principle of self-determination, do hereby adopt
this Chaucer and confer upon it the hull home rule powers of a, charter city.
By this action we adopt the following principles OI'oint #3):
The conduct of -eft business ha vAtflh due process, equal
protection under the laws, and those individual lihorkies orrotected
lvy the Constitution of the United States, the State of ltown, and local
ordinances."
Yet, the text of the red -lined Charter persists in ignoring Chapter 362.4 of
the Code of Iowa. regarding petitioning for Initiative and Referendum:
"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
election, but not less than ten persons, unless
otherwise provided by state law. The petition shall include the signatures of the
petitioners, a statement of their place of residence, and the date on which they
signed the petition. The petition shall be examined 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 returned to the
petitioner."
Kindly make the I & R congruent with Chapter 362.4 or abandon the false
promise of the Preamble. Keeping both intact would reveal the revised
Charter of the City of Iowa City to be simply the product of a year's long
effort to elaborately re-wordsmith an insincere public relations document
intended to preserve the status quo.
Caroline Dieterle
- 727 Walnut Street
- 319-338-8674
Marian Karr
From: Marian Karr
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:25 AM
To: 'Martha Hampel'; City Charter
Subject: RE: Regarding Qualified vs. Eligible
Good Morning Martha,
Sorry for the confusion. Karen provided me a copy of the two pages last night and I will archive with your letter as part
of last night's forum. I also plan on redistributing all correspondence received last night to the Commission Members in
the packet for the March 3 meeting going out later this week.
Marian
From: Martha Hampel [mailto:grnrectangle@aim.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 8:27 AM
To: Marian Karr; City Charter
Subject: RE: Regarding Qualified vs. Eligible
Hello Marian,
I was disappointed to learn that the graph I attached to my letter below was not included in the minutes. Could you please
revise the minutes to include the graph in full color, and email the commission members the updated version? I have
attached it again and included it below with the corresponding data.
Thank you so much,
Martha
Marian Kary
From: Marian Karr
I ent: Friday, February 20, 2015 9:45 AM
o: 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
Iharter were basing the minimum required number of signatures. Luckily, "clues" can easily be found in Section 7.03.A. of
Jur 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).
I 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 .
hank you for your attention to this matter.
Martha Hampel
I
rn
O
N
O
N
01,
0
s
0
0
l7
c
0
N
7
O.
O
0-
0
�v
CL
d
C
O
+1
u
v
w
V
aldoad 10 AawnN
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 Y Y
n � � � � M N N 0 vl
w
c
w
c
v
G1
�
N
C
Y
N
C
4
C
d
v
A
7
>
J
rn
a
ppy
a
+i<
1
OTC
�
I+rd
1
Q
K
0
Ln
O
N
O
O
N
Ln
0
0
N
0
0
N
Ln
v
O
ON
ON
co
rn
o
ro
rn
rn
0
N N NIN N'N NN N a r .a rr la�'r a .a l� r r
r
®!® 1® O (O 10 pp'O O (00!� � .� f9 co 1co !ppOpp I� V V V V
W 1r O (0; V 101 W �-+ 0 (O1V N W a IO (O!V Ul!W la 0
! r
O W! A (n W W a! J (O O J
O O P WN W0 W 10
WW Nco!I I
W! A O (O 1 N A N J J JWW
CO 1 N O J (0 co W I J A A (O N J N
oN
0) 4A i W' CJ W W A W :® 0
W �I co:(n Im I O,<n O rn o JI
�AOo'(n co
,A i .N I�i i W A'COI A W IN O � - �'
a I
N 1 (n N N A N I Cn !
V
°J N o! sir
W !N J' !10
(n I co 10
IN 1 O (W)) !NO O
_t..
I I I ! I
- < (DIf 1 N
ICD 1 O
IN W l (O A!(NO O N VNi (AWN 1 jOP+ lv I
W IO) a IW IO) A IN'O) �A W! W I I(D0
(n - CO W O i A;OI co
Ic to low O
' 1
I j I i I
: 1
PAGE 1
PREAMBLE
. That the gavefflment ef Iowa City Is a sewlee institution,
..
to kM Minn nr lv:T
r In a (n.d 96 97p'Yi:1iJ 9
We, thep�gj�(�Afi.lowa C
State?jpN a and fhep)in
conferQ.on it the full Ii
following iticiples:
1. ResidenKi{rticipa
2. The provisio i't#t:si
residents in a fair;
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 mtg.
jaws; jitistit'ant tbxile Constitution and statutes of the
le af,self-de#'erjj Tation, do hereby adopt this Charter and
I ule Ijb.wers of a charter city. By this action we adopt the
n an inclusive basis in democratic self-government.
relating to the health, safety, and welfare of its
)ble and efficient manner.
3. The conduct of city business in conformity 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.
PAGE 2
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 mtg.
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 pe
8. "Qualified elector" means a
City.
9. "Board" incl
designated.,,,,;,
10."Po
politica
11. "Ordina
12. "Measure", except`4S p-tgVidei
resolution or motion. (Ord: 76-27!
4152, 3-1-2005)
ARTICLE I. POWERS OF THE CITY
Section 1.01. Powers Of The City.
vote in Iowa
to vote in Iowa
similar entity however
corporation, company, association,
of a general and permanent nature.
in article VII, means an ordinance, amendment,
?, 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 2/24/15 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 affecto:}her provisions or
/
applications of this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976�,l ;
F Irol1:11941k LdsllJ01[yl_M
Section 2.01. Composition.
The city council consists of seven,0)embers. As p"gltjl'd iii article III, fotlrto be known
as councilmembers at large, are `tq)�6nofninated by' ��t�ble electors of the city at large,
and three, to be known as district c uncll fibers ar�"'$j?e nominated by eligible
electors of their respective districts. b({ �ounciln�etu}bers sh tl be elected by the qualified
electors of the city at'iM. a (O�rt1. 85 327 �y12 1{,1J8$� `�
C �,r '� •14.+ f�: 3
Section 2.02. Division 1A t�.Aistn ss,X k
The cgVnrl, by ordm�7tp, shall divide the eynfo three council districts of substantially
equal I56pyjation These'`d�sYnctsaFeSto be designated as council district A, council
.>" :*
district B, atj ,pouncil distrtCY):• (Ord 76, 2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 2.03.
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
PAGE 4
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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 regul f'. )ty election. (Ord. 05-4152,
3-1-2005) '
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the beginning oll,
regular city election, the council shall meet a
mayor and mayor pro tem for a term :of two
B. The mayor is a voting member ofCe cc
presiding officer of th(iRGll andi ts'pol
to the City Councill,0. fie::mayor sl z
an annual state of tliepity message. (Ord.
C. The
3227,(
Section
of councilm(A'O�e�rs elected at the
frdmtamone its Members the
resentative of the city,
e mayor may add items
no later than February 28
3
absence of the mayor. (Ord. 85-
All powers of the c(Eya)e veGf$1 in the council, except as otherwise provided by state
4M X:' :'
law or this charter. (O�itj`:$5:8227, 3-12-1985)
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. The council shall appoint the city manager.
B. The council shall appoint the city clerk. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
C. The council shall appoint the city attorney. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995)
17-ITO&I
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 mtg.
D. The council shall appoint all members of the city's boards, except as otherwise
provided by state law. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
E. The council shall fix the amount of compensation, if any, of persons it appoints and
shall provide for the method of compensation of other city employees. All appointments
and promotions of city employees by city council and city manager must be made
according to job -related criteria and be consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal
employment opportunity standards established pursuant to law. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-
1995)
Section 2.09. Rules; Records.
The council may determine its own rules and
consistent with state law. (Ord. 76-2792, U011
Section 2.10. Vacancies.
The council shall fill a vacancy
law. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 2.11.
Passage of ar
members o{3
2005) ?ts
Section
ntairl= ,fiords of its proceedings
office as provided by state
requires a majority vote of all the
ad by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-
A. A councilmember Fpay 7n .f jdid any other city office or be a city employee or elected
county official while ser}iti$a the council nor hold any remunerated city office or
employment for at least on 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 2/24/15 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 city elerl Johnson County Commi y. er of Elections a valid
petition requesting that his or her name be placed o{ld>ballot for that office. Unless
otherwise provided by state law, tThe petition mu$C'e`f)ed not more than sixty five
A?v �?`.;
{63) eighty-five (85) days nor less than . s ty-eignt':€8) days before the date of on must be signed by the election. and Unless otherwise providgQ%Mate law, the p#y(
:.::•. .:
eligible electors from the candidate's di `.e?quaI in number to af:l st two (2) percent
of those who voted to fill the same office at M"fast rei )dr city elecird&ut not less
than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
B. An eligible elector of the city may become a candidate f`dr an at -large council seat by
filing with the ^' r,n„snn of Bltions a petition
:•
requesting that the candidate's name be placed on the.ballot for that office. Unless
otherwise provided I petition must be filed not more than sixty five
*q eighty-fjve (8 3) days no! less than fo+Ey(A8j sixty-eight (68) days before the date of
the electigp 'ate iinl� s� dc(i,by#ate law, the petition 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 iegular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord.
85-3227, 31 1985)
Section 3.02.
A. If there are more than'tivo 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 7
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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) A.
ARTICLE IV. CITY MANAGER
Section 4.01. Appointment; Qual
In appointing a city manager, the. .c
fitness of the person without regal
tenure the city manager shall resid
Section 4.02.
A. The city manager is
office at:ttsilea'si):Ce:>�
termit{itin pay as pYi
shall consi
as such. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-
the aualificair6ns and
Atical or otl'"ffiliation. During his or her
n'the city. (Ord`-1;6.2792, 1-2-1976)
i and upervision of the council and holds
heAWthe council is entitled to receive
B. Upon the resigr4f il6 7 or removal of the city manager, the council shall appoint an
individual qualified to' r ii 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)
PAGE 8
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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 a
the approval of the city council.
(4)Supervise the chief of the police depart
including their suspension or discharge as
not be subject to approval of the 4"p"! Gour
(5)Appoint or employ persons to oce(
appointment is provide ..i.' to law
the fire department with
and chief of the
for
fiP'':2lepartment,
Sucfi',U-pervision shall
`>
other method of
(6)Supervise the adrintratioriO:{ the city`k:onnel system, including the
the cdfnti ns,CSQt1of,all city #Wployees appointed by the city manager
th
(7)SupeMS; ,the perform`a''.4ge of M pntracts for work to be done for the city, supervise
., �:=y {\
all purchases'ff.tnaterials aFiuppli sand assure that such materials and supplies are
received and are of specified gality and character.
�,r_yr
(8)Supervise and managf 1 Xblic 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 9
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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 c
boards within limitations of the budget.
(16)Perform such other and
2005)
B. The city manager,
(1)Present recom
discussion by the
co
(3)Execute contrasts on
3227, 3-12-1985)f
Section 4.05.
as
an efficient manner and
made available to the
rch and p6fjessional assistance to
direct. (Ord�5-4152.3-1-
council and participate in any
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 2/24/15 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 Y;
and
2. To make recommendations regarding
city council.
.. 3. To investigate citizen claims of misconduct by s
independent reports of its findings'to the City CO3UnCi
3. 4. The authority to subpoena witnesses, (Res. 07-,
Section 5.02.
)se of hearing i7P.R9
police department,.
practices, 8.,_t(,p rocedures to the
police officers and to issue
31-
The cQjaOgil shall, subject to the mnt requirees':of'state law, seek to provide broad
represegtbtion 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
e+i+zens iesidcitts;,Council procedures for the removal of members shall be consistent
with state law. (Ord';'.9,5-4152;,-. 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 2/24/15 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 ffinpmount of campaign
contributions made to a candidate for election to co y a person as defined in this
charter. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) 4:
Section 6.02. Disclosure Of
The council, by ordinance, may prescribe pro' &,res rq ring the expenditures ma di' ,[O§ure of the
amount, source and kind of contrantl;: ibutions recei4 a 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. Defi ikj¢ti".
Within this a[ticle "con T
68A camp. (gii,; g r) e"
Y:' \....
Section" Violations:
as that term is defined in chapter 36
The council, by'o"fftance, shO'Qjprescribe: (1) penalties for the violation of the
contribution limitatlAit§ an,, �.A,'R�.y.Sclosure requirements it establishes pursuant to this
section; and (2) wheri`ap'Ygpriate, conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right to
serve on council if elected, onsistent with state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 7.01. General Provisions.
A. Authority.
(1)Initiative. The fµ+a4ied-eligible electors have the right to propose measures to the
PAGE 12
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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 gaa4fied-ell ible 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) incl 'k:a proposition enacting,
amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy o,5 as opposed to one providing
for the execution or administration of a law, poliq ;?b� 3 6A,.already enacted by council.
B. Limitations.
(1)Subject Matter. The right of in'Xj,�tive and ref'.ehd "'%`shall not exteiTij-jp any of the
following: w
(a) Any measure of an pxecgative or
(b) The city
(c) The appiopff'"- * of
(d) The i V,,.of taxes
(e) The issuanc4 of general cio[t ation and revenue bonds.
(f) The letting of
(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.
PAGE 13
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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. ,N,_Ptisure proposed by initiative
petition and adopted by the vote of the council v�iftlo1 t`4yh„mission 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 ;onI ,!ss provision is',O.therwise made in the
j + :4444 .
:.
ti
original initiative measure. No measure red ..,, d by referendum p'��ftion and repealed
by the vote of the council without submission ie v , , or repeaQy the voters
pursuant to this article, may be reenacted for tvio. hereafter excel5f by vote of the
people, unless provision is otherwise ma1.tle;in the o�ig'ifZal referendum petition.
C. Construction.
(1)Scope Of Power.
powers upon the q♦
(2)lnitj2t1Ve. It is intel4ij�i:LthaU(i
an existing::Measure in wli�}`{1. or
heti' ti•Lj:
initiative petr0o may amefi�j qr
(3)Referendum. It
whole or in part.
thisAf(Iffe confer bfoad initiative and referendum
:tors oyiN city.
tiative%petition will be invalid because it repeals
by virtue of proposing a new measure and (b) an
Iiil:Y.bilu"
a referendum petition may repeal a measure in
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 7.051A)
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
W_TA*E1l
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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, 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 ... -public, forms
and affidavits suitable for the co6rAppncement of proceedings and the pP' &ration of
initiative and referendum petition5;,(Ot.&D5-4152, 34
02005)
Section 7.03. Petitions;:ReV ation OfltratuT,
A. Number Of Signal"�'Y*. Initia(e and re rye; dum petitions must be signed by
Y c>
ffaa4ified eli i le electo t)ul jnumber toi;�east twenty-five percent 25% of the
{'>' L ? pv..
number. persi t y ho vot".. thel"as&i�. $ity election, but such signatures of
elieibli§`ffectors shafl'13' `sno feSYBY:?than the Y Ober eoualinR tWO thousand five
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 fermishall-also
'd a fe, the eF's birth d 1 fail t pnt.. h'rth. a4L;hall not
p _�___ ._. _.._ _roar _. _ ._.. _� . ....... ....... failure __ _..__. _ _.. _.. ;hall not
lidate a signer's signat Fe. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have
PAGE 15
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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 qualified -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 of,xf[e, 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. Sign il3tP5 on an initiative pet)IiAn must be
secured and the petition filed within six mont' ,':fitter NO ate the aff[QAyit required
under section 7.021A] was filed. (¢t(#,:85-3227, 3$5)
E. Time For Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum ppt(ittUs may be filed within sixty
days after final adoption by the council of the m��ttr@ souIg�tt jo be reconsidered, or
subsequently at anytime more than two years after sQ ifjjial adoption. The signatures
on a referendum petition must 15d;secured during the sixty days after such final
adoption; however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final adoption, the
sign atu e`s r"td'sfbe secured within six months after the date the affidavit required under
section 7�2jAl was files. (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 he.'r;signature for any reason by filing with the city clerk a
statement of his of<tier.inte 1:t0 revoke his or her signature. After a petition is filed a
signatory may not rev`ok�::, fS'or her signature. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared
g Y Y ,.. ,.,,..: g y p P
and have available to the dublic, 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 2/24/15 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. CeFtlkate of City C!eFI..i Amendment. Within twenty .lays aftn. a petition is filed
y0hieh contains ♦hn minimd signatwes, as set forth in ectien 7 03 N above,
the city erl( sh Il complete certificate s to the petition's suffieleney. If the nt•tie"
4 nsufflEl2nt, the lerk_ tif' to 1. ll if. the t• I h In the notion
SCF'�TnllZiCCTIaT�Je G"Il"f�clTcn"'npl�T`"lTGRNrT7YTICTi1'fl c-rJc 1CIo-1T
PAGE 17
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 mtg.
C. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the Objections
Committee's actions shall be by writ of certiorari.
Q CauFt Review- she extent ie council shall
13e�y Writ of certieFa: (Ord 05 4152 z + 2005)
D-Na4dity-OfSignature` on Shah be deemed sufficient for the puFpeses of this
.tlele If it contains -.I'.I signaturesnumb— : bed I.. et•... 7.03 and is
tietely-f+led,, even thGU " the-pe#9en-n ay-cantain one or rneFe invalid nat s A
signature shall be Been tl-vaNd-unles»t I-.' of the genukie4gnature
Section 7.05. Action On
A. Action By Council. When an initiailvE
su#ieieotva the c�0 A*Cll.:,s�h`, �IIII prompi
reconsider the refefM 'mmeas'Ui, If the
measure and fails td
if the council fills to
measQ.50o the qualifi
more that,Fthirty days
adopts the Otppp
;:.
substance or if ,
proceedings shall
submitted to the
B. Submission To Voters.
the
idum'p`etition has been determined
r the proposed initiative measure or
Is f6'40.opt a proposed initiative
filar in substance within sixty days, or
within thirty days after the date the
"hall submit the proposed or referred
reinafter prescribed. If at anytime
,B-�g,� d initiative or referendum election the council
easiT"O"or 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 7.05JAL
provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than 80130 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 2/24/15 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 than50-0 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 ad
required for "questions" in section 376.5 ofi
purpose of the referred or proposed mea 'L
4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 7.06. Results Of Election.
A. Initiative. If a maJ4l.ffi6f
s x^.;3`
measure vote in its. faVgr, it
4-4 ),;be made available to the
at the; lty.'s expense in the manner
Code. Tli'e'siabject matter and
II be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. 05-
XX
Vdtii g.Qp a " roposed initiative
lontecl'"upon certification of the
election results. The adapted measure shall be treated in all respects in the same
manner a `(1i aStiies of the same kind adopted by the council, except as provided in
sect io 47,OLjB)(3). 'If conflicting measures are .approved by majority vote at the same
electioii`.the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the
extent ofsU'h;conflict. '``5, +';:•,
B. Referendum. I?Ahajority,$fthe qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote
in favor of repealing III+:Sre, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of
the election results. (Ord??b5-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of StxieteFConditions Or Requirements.
The council shall may not set, except by charter amendment, conditions or
requirements affecting initiative and referendum, • h' h are higher or maFe stringent
than-t#ese-impesed by this haFte;: (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
PAGE 19
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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. Ha
of publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid un }`?
p p Cl�fit
of the code of Iowa is filed with the council, the cgt:(il q
ordinance to the voters at a special city electfJtrn`d the
effective until approved by a majority of thb§e Vbting.
C. If a petition valid under the provisions of si
`" with the council proposing an anJidipentto
proposed amendment to the votetSa-tS'.,,t
becomes effective if approved b rrii " c
pp Y a J 'ortys`
Section 8.02.
ver, within thirty (30) days
provisions of section 362.4
�t submit the amending
jettdment does not become
of the coded" Iowa is filed
the council mfsf'submit the
Dn, and the amendment
ig,,(Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
The council, using the pif-*. dy f p>escnbed> i article V, shall establish a charter review
commis{9tt at I@asGpce\eveyfen years: f9jlowpg the effective date of this charter.
The cbfi]r]lission, consisting o t I ast nine frrmbers, shall review the existing charter
1 :•' t
and may v!�thin twelve riiphths rend any charter amendments that it deems fit
to the coutGji he councII s�}}�(� eithe exercise its power of amendment pursuant to
e..
section 8.016 o`''f��3 ,charter �;a matter recommended by the commission or submit
such amendments't`o'he vgtY in the for prescribed by the commission, and an
amendment becomes i tfi)ve when approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05-
4152, 3-1-2005)
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:
PAGE20
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
05-4152 3-1-2005 Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2.052
5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.01, 7.02, 7 03B,C,E, 7 0
Res. 07-262 8-31-2007 5.01
Footnote 1: The home rule charte
November 15, 1973, and by ordin
section 372.9, is set oUC:ti !�,p as
2.12ff,1 01A, 3.02A, 4.04A, 5.02,
B,C, 7 05 % 06, 8.01, 8.02
i`ed;gy the voters of the city on
anuaiy.2, 1976, pursuant to I.C.A.
2014-15 REVIEW
As of 2/24/15 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 O. Shaw, Steve Atkins, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby,
Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam B Sullivan and Dee Vanderhoef In
furtherance of its charge the Commission began meeting in April of 2014 and has met
over twenty-five (25) times. Residents have had the opportunity to participate in the
process at every step. All meetings were posted and open to the public, the Commission
heard in -person comments and accepted written correspondence, and the Commission
held two traditional public hearings and a public meeting with interactive discussion.
The Commission was aided in its work by the invaluable contributions of City Attorney
Eleanor Dilkes and City Clerk Marian Karr.
The Report. This Report is meant to provide the City Council and the public with a
substantive review of the Commission's recommendations. It supplements the "red -line"
version of the Charter that was drafted by the City Attorney and City Clerk and sets forth
the language of the specific amendments. While the hope is that the Report will provide
some details to explain the Commission's recommendations, any document of this nature
will necessarily be somewhat incomplete. Accordingly, the Report itself should be
supplemented with the detailed minutes taken of the Commission's meetings.
Additionally, the Commission members remain available to address questions and issues
that may arise during the Council's review of its recommendations.
Explanations of Recommended Charter Amendments.
I. The Commission recommends the adoption of an updated Preamble. The
new Preamble language is intended to emphasize that the Charter serves as a
"constitution" for the City, that the authority of city officials is conferred upward
from its people, and that the authority conferred upon city officials is intended to
be exercised in accordance 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 Sec0611,4'02(A) was a result of a desire to
remove the City Manager's specific entilreii ent to -,two, months termination pay
from the Charter. While there was ndf'necessau1 any, objection to the City
Manager, who serves at the will of 'the City Council, receiving termination or
severance pay, the Commission d d;t gtbelieve a specific ari otij it should be listed
in the Charter. As a practical matter, this is an issue that over theyears has been
negotiated by City Manager candidates and the ity Council, with he, amount of
termination pay afforded hycontract exC@eil ng the Charter's `"two month
minimum significantly. T>us:66 tract negotiatiotl seems, to the Commission, to
be the better place to addressthrs m2tter,.
6.
fold. F.
Review
United !
s
)ose;:;behind the :recommendation. to amend Section 5.01 is two-
woiTcitizen was removed to make:<clear that the Citizens Police
is not concerned 641y'with the complaints and input of actual
police
relation to''thi
makes clear'
independently
ns This propos6&eliange also reflects the current practice of
mptIng to remam Consistent with the Board's recent name
Citizens Review:Board to Citizens Police Review Board, the
nie ds renammg ibc Board the Community Police Review
ie C 'mission proposes changes to make it clear that the
o, hold acommunity forum and to make recommendations
fipies, practices and procedures are distinct powers. The
there had been some concern that the Board's
ipolice policies, practices and procedures could only come in
tually raised at the annual community forum. The change
"the 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
7
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 petitions be increased. The minimum
number of signatures required for an initiative or referendum petition, 2500, has
not changed since the Charter's inception, despite large increases in Iowa City's
population. Moreover, the change from qualified to eligible will increase
significantly the number of persons who may sign the petitions. Given these
facts, the Commission is recommending the Charter require the signatures of a
minimum of 3600 eligible voters. That number was reached by taking the ratio of
the required number of signatures when the Charter was first adopted to the then
population of the city. That ratio, 5.33%, was then applied to the current Iowa
City population, as determined by the latest United States Decennial Census. The
actual number does not appear in the proposed Charter language so that it need
not be updated whenever the census numbers change. The methodology is,
however, included in the proposed language, This ,proposed change appears in
Section 7.03(A).
Allowing all eligible electors to sign initiative and referendum petitions led to
proposed changes in the process of managing those petitions when they are
received by the City Clerk's office. First, there is no longer any need for the
petitions to contain space for the signatory's birthdate, which was optional
anyway. This proposed change was made to Section 7.03(B). Second, there is no
longer any need for the cumbersome and time-consuming process of the City
Clerk certifying the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petitions based on whether
the signatures can be verified as qualified electors. Because eligible electors will
be able to sign petitions, the City Clerk will only be required to verify that the
signatory has listed an address within the corporate limits of Iowa City. This
proposed change would be accomplished by deleting the existing process
described in Section 7.04 and replacing it with a simplified validation process
modeled after Iowa Code Section 362.4, related to petitions authorized by the city
state 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 Charter itself.
Other Matters Considered. In addition to those matters discussed that led to the above
recommendations, the Commission also gave serious consideration to several issues that
did not lead to recommended amendments. Some of those issues are discussed below.
Numerous other issues also were discussed by the Commission and these discussions,
though not described here, are reflected in the Commission's meeting minutes.
1. Selection of the Mayor. The Commission spent considerable time
discussing the method used to select the mayor, both in its regular meetings and at
the interactive public meeting: Some concerns were raised with the current
process, including generally the secrecy of or lack of transparency in how the
Council Members choose the Mayor and the inability of members of the general
public to vote for a Mayor or otherwise participate in the process. Concerns also
were raised that the process is somewhat anachronistic and undemocratic, and that
there might be better participation in a city election if there was an actual
campaign for the Mayor. In response to these concerns the Commission
considered an amendment to the. Charter that would have required that the Mayor
be elected directly by the citizens. Public comment and the Commission's
minutes will demonstrate that there are strong opinions on both sides of this issue.
In the end, the nraiority of the Commission decided not to recommend an
amendment to the Charter on this issue, believing the current system, despite
concerns, has served its purpose and worked well for the City. The Commission
does recommend strongly, however, that the City Council spend some time
studying this issue on its own and attempt to come up with some change to the
current process of selecting the Mayor in order to make it more open, inclusive
and transparent. Absent 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 electorate and the district -only council
members. Support for such a change was also found in the fact that district
candidates would then be able to run smaller, more economical campaigns
focusing only on their respective districts. The majority of the Commission did
not recommend such an amendment, though, because of a concern that it might
promote parochialism among districts and from a positive recognition that the
current system allows each citizen to.: claim a stake in all WY.gn council races.
4. Council Member Compensation. The Commission received several public
comments indicating that the current compensation '':for members of the City
Council is too low, does not reflect the amount of time required to serve on the
City Council, and may discourage some low wage earners from running for City
Council. Indeed, the consensus of the Conunission also was that the current
salary is too low. No change was proposed to the Charter, however, because the
overall.,view was that this is an issue better left to the legislative actions of the
City Council, as opposed to a change to the Charter as recommended by the
Commission. At the very least, the Commission encourages the City Council to
further study this issue and to consider reinstating the ordinance requiring for
periodic increases in City Council compensation based on increases in the cost of
living.,
5. Alternatives to Primary Elections. The Commission discussed alternatives
to the system of primary elections described in Section 3.02, including instant
run-off elections. Given 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
5
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 0. Shaw
Steve Atkins
Kerrie-Karrie Craig
Karen Kubby
Mark Schantz
Anna Moyers Stone
Adam B Sullivan
D
slol"ITANN'l `IJDKTAI,
1-1
I MAMI 0 a Me
Marian Karr
immimmmimumimimmuuuuuuuuuuuum
From: Judith Pfohl <judypfohl@ymail.corn>
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 10:45 AM
To: Council
Subject: Charter commission comments
I have looked at the current redline comments the commission is considering and would like to present a
question to you and to them.
My main concern is the unnecessary word change for valid signatures on petitions. With same day registration,
a petition gatherer could always just bring registration forms along with their petitions to be signed. If someone
is not interested enough to vote, they should not cost taxpayers money for creating a vote.
For example, how many more times would University students not invested in the connnunity sign a petition to
change the 21-only ordinance?
,Ludy Kohl
2229 Abbey Lane
Iowa City, IA 522,16