HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-01 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present:
Staff Present:
Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner
Davies, Fleagle, Fruehling, Fruin, Goers, Havel, Jones, Kilburg,
Sovers
Others: Miglin, Van Heukelom (USG)
Continuation of meeting protocol discussion
Teague: Welcome to everyone that is here in person, as well as to anyone that is
virtual. Um, our first item on the agenda, uh, we're gonna talk about the, uh,
continuation of our meeting protocol, uh, discussions. And, um, I might just
invite our City Attorney, Eric Goers to start that conversation for us.
Goers: Thank you, Mayor. Um, hopefully everyone's had an opportunity to read both
the memo and the draft set of rules. I thought I'd provide a little history of
how we got to where we are now. Um, there was, uh, uh, a desire on the part
of Council to look at the rules and, and perhaps modernize them and, and, uh,
put them all in one place. Most cities, um, have a, a single set of rules, uh, to
which, uh, uh, members of the public and the council members and staff
themselves, uh, can find, uh, most of the rules that pertain to the governance
of city council and the, uh, procedures, uh, by which their meetings are run.
Uh, Iowa City has traditionally not done it that way. We've had, uh, uh, a large
number of separate resolutions, um, covering a broad array of topics. And,
uh, they were kind of scattered, uh, hinder and yon, which, uh, I think we
have concluded was not the best way of organizing those. And so, um, I want
to thank Kellie for doing quite a bit of leg work in kind of rounding up, uh, all
those resolutions and putting them in one spot, uh, for me to go through and
incorporate into, uh, the drafts set of rules that, uh, you folks have been
provided. Um, so I, I took the kind are the resolutions that, uh, constitute the
present set of rules, uh, governing City Council and City Council meetings.
And then I also, uh, did some research gathering, uh, the single set of rules
from a number of different metro, uh, cities, as well as, um, uh, template or
examples of rules provided by the Iowa League of Cities. Um, and then
compared those to how Iowa City has traditionally run their meanings,
understanding that every city is different and has, uh, kind of a different
culture for how their meetings are run. Uh, Iowa City has long been known
as, uh, being very welcoming of public comment, uh, and providing a lot of
opportunity for that, for example. And I wanted to be true to that, uh, history
and, uh, so, uh, drafted the rules, uh, in order to reflect that, uh, emphasis
within our, uh, our community. Um, those rules were then, uh, reviewed at
the staff level and then were provided to, uh, a subset of Council members,
including the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and Council member, uh, Weiner,
and, uh, they provided their input. And so further refinements were made,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 2
uh, and that has resulted in the rules, uh, that have been presented, uh, to
you. Um, obviously there, the rules are aimed at allowing for effective
business meetings. This is your business meeting, there's, uh, any number of,
uh, ways of course, that all Council members are receiving public input, for
example, in all different kinds of settings and so forth. Um, but this is
ultimately the, the business meeting at which decisions, uh, are made by, by
you, um, and so the rules, like the rules of every other, you know, city are
geared toward having an effective and efficient meeting while, uh,
particularly in Iowa City's case, allowing for maximum public comment and
allowing everyone to, uh, be heard, um, and, and so they have an opportunity
to address you, uh, directly, uh, at the time that you folks are considering a
vote one way or another on, on a given item. Um, these are your rules, so
there's no pride in authorship. If you folks would like to see, uh, changes,
please don't be bashful in discussing those. I do have one, uh, suggested
amendment after, um, uh, looking at, at it more carefully in comparing it to
Robert's Rules, which, who, who knew it was this thick, it's this, this is how
thick Robert's Rules is. Um, and that's in Rule 2, the last sentence in, uh, 2, I
would recommend that we delete, uh, the reason I suggest that is that Iowa
City has long adopted Robert's Rules, um, and this sentence, uh, that is,
"except as specifically required by these rules, Council shall not use any
formal points of parliamentary order, personal privilege, parliamentary
inquiry, or other technical forms," uh, might be construed as undermining the
adoption of Robert's Rules. Um, and so I would recommend that we delete
that, uh, last sentence, but otherwise, um, I would, uh, turn it back over to the
Mayor to, um, and, and invite your discussion and in, and input.
Teague: Thank you, Eric. And, um, I was one of the ones that was on the committee,
and so was, um, Mayor Pro Tem, as well as Councilor Weiner. So this is open
discussion. I think, um, the document is, you know, has been shared not only
with Council, also to the public. Um, so now I'll just open it up for discussion.
Weiner: I, I, I would just open by saying, I think I really appreciate all the work that,
that you put into this, um, Eric, as well as you, as you Kellie. Um, I, I think, and
I think there are probably, I think there are some refinements that still need
to be made to Section 21 so that we're not impinging on freedom of speech,
uh, freedom of speech, and so that we're not essentially encouraging people
to take some actions, um, but I think, like, Councilor, I think you have some
expertise in, in this area. I mean, I just basically wanna make sure that we're,
that we are abiding by, um, that we're, uh, but, allowing people to have their
First Amendment rights and not basically encouraging, um, public displays
that we're, that we may not be interested in by actually putting some of this
language in here. And I'm thinking specifically of the first paragraph, that's
that, uh, Rule 21 that, that talks about, um, slanderous or disruptive remark,
the, and then in the bullets, the first and second bullets in particular, um, I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 3
just think we need some refinement and maybe a couple of others. I haven't
come up with specific language. There might be a couple of others, have some
specific suggestions. Otherwise I think that it's a, it's really great to have it all
in one place, um, so that, so that people can, can know what the rules of the
road are. And that's probably, that's a huge, I think that's a huge service to
Council and to the public.
Goers: If I may, I wanna make sure that we're all looking at the same version of
rules, perhaps I've got the wrong version. Um, you had mentioned Rule 21,
my version doesn't have bullet points on that. What's the title of the Rule that
you're referring to?
Weiner: Sorry. It's um, Rule 21, and then I missed the Rule 22, because it comes at
the, at the bottom of the page. So the bullets are under Rule 22.
Goers: Ah, okay, got it. All Right. Perfect.
Weiner: Apology.
Goers: Um, I would follow up in, in this way about the First Amendment rights.
You're absolutely right, um, about that. Most of the, um, language,
particularly in the second, um, bullet point is aspirational, uh, and obviously
is ideal for a, a functioning, um, governmental meeting, um, where we're, you
know, we invite constructive criticism, tough criticism and so forth, but, you
know, personal attacks and so forth are not particularly productive. That said
everyone at this dais is a public figure, um, you know, and as a result, usually
the First Amendment response to bad speech regarding, um, uh, a public
figure is more speech. Um, that is speech, the contrary to rebut that. Uh, it
would be different if it was just clearly an outrageously slanderous, if it was
addressing, uh, an employee who, you know, isn't at this dais and isn't a
public figure. Um, but you're right. That is, you know, if someone comes and
wants to have a personal attack to a Council member, I think they should
probably know that's not a particularly productive, uh, exercise, but, uh, I
agree with you, the a First Amendment would probably entitle them to do so.
Harmsen: Yeah. If I could, could jump in. I, so I dusted off the old, uh, media law and
First Amendment law, uh, from, from courses and coursework and things like
that, so I could double check this, and yeah, as I was reading through this,
like, it seems pretty clear that the things we want to do in terms of holding a
meeting, like no disruptions, uh, seem to be pretty allowable. At least when I
was going back and looking through some of the, some of the textbooks and
through some different court cases. Uh, but anything that shies into the area
of addressing content, I feel like that's, that's a landmine. Um, it's a, it's a real
thing to, to kind of avoid. So I, I agree, even though we wish people would not
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 4
behave in a way that would maybe be slanderous, or personal attacks and
things like that, uh, my reading on it, um, and of course I'm not the Attorney,
but, um, my reading on it is we really can't legally do that. Like we wouldn't
have any legal grounds to stand on, uh, but I think it's also ethical, I mean,
that's, you know, if we want to err the side of open discussion. Now that said,
that doesn't mean anybody can say it at any point in time in a meeting. So,
you know, we do offer, um, you know, I think, uh, you know, watching some
of the meetings and some of the problems that sort of brought this about
dealt with the fact that meetings were being disrupted, um, and the -- off
topic, um, that seems to be something that would be a reasonable, um, and
because it is a dedicated forum, um, you know, a public forum, so it's
dedicated to a purpose. We do have, I think the, the right to say, you know,
open public comments for this time to this time, other speakers, uh, during,
you know, we're talking about a zoning issue, um, speakers that speak to that
need to be talking about that topic, all seem to be things that we can say yes,
that for the, the running of our meeting, that works. Um, but I think we get
into stuff like, you know, some of the specifics of what we would, how we
would like people to behave, which I agree I'd like them to behave. I don't
think we can codify that, uh, and, and make it stick. So, um, so I mean, that's
kind of my, my, my thoughts too, is as I go back and look through this.
Thomas: I, I appreciate seeing all this material as well. Uh, I kind of wish I had seen it
earlier, actually. Um, just to understand what, you know, how, how this, how
our meetings are held and what the options and possibilities are in terms of,
um, specific comments under Rule 20, the time limit. Um, I, I, based on my
experience on the Council, uh, it seems, I would like to distinguish, uh, time
limits on, you know, the public comment period and things of that sort. But
when it comes to items that have a public hearing, it seems to me those three
minutes may not be sufficient. And, uh, you know, I would, I would prefer
something along the lines of five minutes on, on those items that require a
public hearing. Uh, so that, that would be, that would be, I think my main
focus, um. We, we talked about the bullet points. It does, one of them was on
organized groups and, um, you know, that can be creative in how they use
their time. And, and I just wanted to note that, um, you know, it can either be
consolidating under one speaker or one -- another option that we've seen is
that, uh, an organized group will coordinate their presentation, so over four
or five, uh, individuals will combine their time, and, um, each of them will
cover a different aspect of whatever the issue is before them. Uh, and I, I felt
that worked very effectively and was very productive as well.
Teague: I wanted to point out, um, for Rule number 20 that it does go on to say, um,
uh, persons limited to three minutes speaking time, and then, then it, after
the comma, it says unless additional or less time is determined by the
presiding officer, which will be the, uh, Mayor in this situation, right, well,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 5
right now, today, um, and is based on the number of persons wishing to
speak and//or the length of the Council meeting. So it does allow, um, for
adjustments to be done, but I, I hear your specific requests, is, time limits for,
or public. Um, um, your, your specific request is for what, again?
Thomas: Public hearing, anything --
Teague: A public hearing --
Thomas: -- with a public hearing. And, and I, I must say, I'm not quite sure exactly
what requires a public hearing, clearly, Planning and Zoning matters typically
have public hearings, and it's, it's that type of event or item that I'm most
concerned with based on my own experience, that, that oftentimes those are,
uh, discussions where the speakers, the public comment, uh, is, is more likely
to reasonably go over a three minute limit. Um, and so I think at least going
into it, and I, I agree with you, there's a lot of discretion that the presiding
officer has in terms of deciding what the time limit should be, but just as a
general rule, it seems to me that, um, those items that have a, a public, uh,
you know, public hearing aspect to them may require more time than three
minutes as a maximum.
Taylor: I agree with Councilor Thomas on that, that in some instances, and in our
experience in the six years we've been on there, there have been times when,
uh, during the, uh, public, uh, hearing, it seemed as though there were folks
that might have had a little bit more to say that could have, uh, had five
minutes, five, I think five would be the max for them. Uh, if they had some
type of session, if they had a visual presentation, we could extend the time
limit for them. So I would agree with that in, in that respect for the public
hearings. Of course, on your judgment on the, on the presiding officer's
judgment too, if there are 20 people that wanna talk five minutes, that'll be,
that would be quite a long time. So again, going back to your judgment on
that, uh. I wanted a little, I, I, I appreciate all the work that you did, Eric, and,
and those that, that worked on this. 'Cause I think it does help to provide
some clarification as far as, uh, where we are and that it is a business and that
we wanna run it, uh, smoothly and get our business done. Uh, so I, I thank
you for that. Um, especially since a recent meeting that we attended, uh, there
wasn't anything in there clearly, clearly stating that the, uh, mayor pro tem or
presiding officer can, can like temporarily put the meeting in recess. Um,
does our group feel that we, we need to have that kind of language in there,
that allows the mayor pro tem or presiding officer to, to recess the meeting?
Teague: Would Robert's Rules kind of address that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 6
Goers: Yeah, I mean, Robert's Rules do allow for that. Uh, you certainly could add it,
but, um, you have the ability now by adopting Robert's Rules.
Taylor: Okay. Thank you. And kind of on the lines of that too... Rule 26, let's see
here, uh, the call for a vote, is that basically what you're saying is what, what
I'm used to, as, uh, calling the question and would that, I mean, should we
refer to it as that? Or can it say, can, can one Council member, or would it
take more than one to, to actually call the question then? Can, can we clarify
that in there?
Goers: Uh, yes. That is a different phrasing for calling the question and, uh, yeah, I
believe this is consistent with Robert's Rules. What's, uh, spelled out here
now that's, you know, as you're already, I'm sure aware if, if, you know,
debates tends to drag on and, and become repetitive and circular, then a
motion can be made to call the question, the second needs to be made, and
then a majority of Council needs to vote to call the question. That's not a vote
on the, um, on the merits of the underlying motion. So you would have two
votes, you know? Yes, we vote to call the question and now we're gonna vote
on the underlying item.
Taylor: Okay. Thank you.
Harmsen: Uh, one other quick question. Um, is there, oh, I probably should have said
this before. Thank you to everybody that worked on this, uh, very much
appreciate the time and effort that went into it. Um, and to give us something
that then we can, can hash over and have something concrete in front of us.
It's an important part of the process. And, and I wanna make sure I
acknowledge that, that, that work is appreciated. Um, with the Robert, since
the Robert's Rules updates periodically, would we have to, every time it
updates, just go back and say, you know, we are adopting the newest version,
or would we wanna phrase this to just follow whatever the latest...any
thoughts on that?
Goers: Uh, yes. Uh, I'd have to look at the ordinance again, but I believe that the
ordinance that is codified that, uh, adopts Robert's Rules, I, I believe it says as
amended, that would certainly be the magic language that you're looking for
because you're right. It, it is, I mean, the book I'm carrying is the 12th edition
and --
Harmsen: Mm-hmm.
Goers: -- it's, you know, the newly revised there was of course the revised version
and now the newly revised and yeah, you're right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 7
Harmsen: Okay. Thank you.
Bergus: I wanna echo the, thanks for everyone who worked on this. Um, I do have a
few kind of maybe more housekeeping, cler --, clerical kinds of things, and a
couple of substantive comments. Um, there are a few places in the resolution
where, um, like "council member" is, uh, just inconsistently capitalized. I'm
sorry. That's super picky. Um, but it looks to be a term of art in a few places
and, and, and then other places it's not, and just of, with the, when it's
capitalized, assuming it has this specific meeting, I just wanna be, I want
confirmation that the presiding officer, anytime it says "council member" also
includes the presiding officer, correct? Yes. Because of course they would be
a member of council if it is the mayor or the mayor pro tem.
Goers: In -- in Iowa City's set up, yes.
Bergus: Right, right. Okay. Um, and then for, uh, Rule 10, which is labeled agenda
deadline, um, I liked, I really liked this as a clarification of kind of how things
can be added to the agenda. Um, I don't know if we wanna include a deadline,
like if things are to be added, it should be the mayor or at least the members
of council, or, you know, people can add items to the agenda by requesting
them to be included by a certain date. Or if the intent really was just to say
kind of who can request inclusion on the agenda?
Goers: Right. Some cities do in their rules include a specific agenda. And, and for
some cities it's really, I don't wanna use the word draconian, but boy, you
really need to be on the ball and, uh, be early. Um, and, um, certainly this
Council can do that, obviously setting, um, uh, deadline as it sees fit. Um,
although I would want to have some input from Kellie on that before you,
before you settle on a particular, uh, date and time. But as you're, as you've
said, as it's presently formatted, this just speaks to kind of how someone gets
an item on the agenda. Right.
Bergus: So I don't know if maybe just titling it something other than agenda
deadline. I don't know if that would be more, clearer, um, for that, I think
'cause otherwise we're just, I assume our deadline is the 24 hours' notice as
required by state law. Um, then for the, um, conduct of meetings section in
Rule 16, it kind of lays out what the agenda is. And maybe this is answered by
that, um, agenda deadline section as far as adding things to the agenda, but
under council, city council information, back in the day, there used to be new
business and old business, sort of, things we've talked about before and may
wanna bring up again, and, or things that we may want to discuss in the
future. I've always been a little uncertain, what is the appropriate time to
bring forward things we may want to add to a work session or a formal
agenda and you know, to, to bring it up as a topic, um, if that's appropriate
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 8
under city council information, and if so that's great, but I just, um, or if it
needs to be kind of behind the scenes to the clerk with at least three
councilors.
Teague: What item number Is that?
Bergus: So it's in Rule 16, there's kind of the, uh, order of consideration of the
agenda. And then it's got what all the items will be on the agenda. And
number nine under that list is city council information, which I'm mentioning
it there just because I think the way that we've been conducting it in the two
years I've been on Council is that's like reporting on, um, items of interest in
the community and sort of like that, you know, making remarks about things
that we're aware of that were things that we've attended. Um, and so if that's
the appropriate time to ask, Hey, do we wanna talk about X, Y, Z, um, in the
future, I just am hoping for, for clarification on that.
Goers: Well, as you're probably aware, the, of course the, the potential danger is
getting into a substantive conversation about a topic that has not been
noticed up. Now what you're proposing I think is fine. I, I think you're
suggesting, Hey, there's this topic I'd like to talk about it, does, you know,
Council as a, about do want to talk about it next time?
Bergus: Mm-hmm
Goers: --as well. I, I think that's fine. And I think it's appropriate to raise it at that
level. If you're looking for, um, you know, a separate number, obviously we
can, we can do that if, if that's the will of Council.
Bergus: Well, it's just more like if these are our rules for our conduct, I just wanted
to be really clear on, you know, for, as, as we've been operating. I wasn't, I
wasn't sure if that's, if that was appropriate there or not, but sounds like it
would be okay. Yeah.
Weiner: I, I like the idea of personally, I like the idea of doing it then, because it also
is more transparent than doing it behind the scenes. I mean, you can do it
behind the scenes, but if a councilor can say, We'd really like to get topic X,
um, on the, on the work session or whatever, and then, and, or on our work
session agenda, um, do I have, and if then, and if then you, as the presiding
officer, says, are there at least two other councilors who wanna do that, then
everybody is put on notice, not just the Council.
Fruin: I think historically that has occurred at the work session under the, uh, of the
IP of the pending work session topics, um, is when that's typically brought
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 9
up. But as, as Eric said, I don't think there's any harm in doing it here. I don't
know that we need to call it out on the agenda.
Weiner: Okay.
Bergus: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Goers: In fact, oh, sorry.
Bergus: No, go ahead.
Goers: I was just gonna get back to Council member Harmsen about the, um, uh,
Robert's Rules we do in fact, in 156, uh, talk about we, uh, uh, the rules of
parliamentary practices comprised in the current addition of Robert's Rules
orders as amended, so, oh, okay.
Harmsen: Thank you.
Bergus: Um, Rule 19, uh, differentiates for people who address the Council, I think
during public comment versus during a public hearing and the public hearing
requires the, a speaker who is a party in interest to, by virtue of their address
to provide their address and group affiliation. Is there, um, I just wasn't sure
what the basis for that was, or if that's a necessary distinction.
Goers: Right, well, because let me make sure I'm looking at the right rule. You said
19?
Bergus: 19.
Goers: Yeah. There are some matters that, uh, folks can object, um, and be part of a
petition, uh, you know, objecting only by virtue of their address. And so if
they're identifying themselves, it, you know, and not that any member of the
public can't speak to that item, of course, but, uh, I think the Council would
probably want to know, um, you know, they're a neighbor, they're one of the
ones who can object because, you know, as the state statute pulls out and
kind of gives those folks a special privilege to object, uh, obviously you don't,
don't have to do it if you don't want to.
Bergus: 'Cause I think in the past we'd asked everyone to provide their address. And
so we're saying, just provide your city, unless you are someone who's, like,
interested in the specific item during a public hearing. Is that a fair way to
say it?
Goers: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 10
Bergus: Okay. I do think under the, um, under 21 and 22, I agree with what, uh,
Councilors Harmsen and Weiner indicated about, you know, being, not, not,
um, prohibiting those things that we know we can't really prohibit. I would
urge us to be really careful to move anything that is aspirational or an
expectation into a section that just states that. That says these are our
expectations for how people will conduct themselves at our meeting. Um,
because I don't, I think as it's, as it's presented to me, it could be that if you
violate any of these things, then, you know, certain sort of corrective action
could happen. And I, I just don't, I'm not comfortable saying that well sort of
impose some limitation on someone if they violate a rule that we're all in
agreement probably is not enforceable. So I think if we can just kind of have a
list of expectations that are very clear that we're all adults and, you know, we
hope to conduct ourselves civilly and then, uh, those that we would want to
actually enforce.
Teague: What rule number are you on?
Bergus: Uh, 22. I -- I think also, oh, sorry, 21 and 22. So 21 is personal, repetitive,
slanderous. I think we can limit, but that's a real tough, it's a real high bar and
disruptive, cause that's not content based. I think we can limit.
Teague: And, um, you can certainly continue, but I think as we're going through this,
if there is something that Councilors wanted to, um, you can have a
conversation with your, with our colleague or any colleague as they're stating
something. Um, I think specifically if there's something that maybe you have
a different thought about, so that, because at this point, like at least I'm
writing down stuff and I know our City Attorney is, these are gonna be the
changes unless we hear some dis-, some, you know, some further discussion
here.
Alter: I actually, so I have a point of, I have a question, um, this came up actually
when we were discussing rules and it is specifically about First Amendment
versus being able to conduct the business of the meeting. Um, and certainly
we don't wanna codify things that, um, I see this as a big tension, right. And
it's something that we've certainly we're worrying through. And so I guess
my, the fulcrum upon which I have curiosity and, and questions about is, um,
at what point, how are we, how are we able to define disruption, I guess
right. And I go back to the beginning, which is as the City Attorney framed it,
which was us being able to carry on the business of the meeting, um, so I feel
like we're kind of, there's a tension there between, and understandably so
between the First Amendment, um, rights of an individual to express
themselves, um, along with then sort of the purpose and function of the
meeting. And I'm wondering if there's a way in which we can reconcile it,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 11
because right now it seems that, that reconciliation or that mitigation is, is,
um, is not viable? Is what I'm hearing at least from different people.
Goers: Well, I mean, it kind of depends on the nature of the disruption. I, I think for
example, you know, as Council Bergus indicated, you know, there are some
things like, oh, is that really slanderous? Is it really not? And is it, you know,
germane? Well, the, these rules as currently written, um, empower the
presiding officer to make that determination, whether it's germane or not,
and so forth, but some of the other disruptions, hypothetically, and which
you've experienced yourself, um, in the past have been, you know, folks
shouting out from the audience, for example, when they're not at the podium
and, and have not been recognized to speak, that's disruption. I mean, there's
no, you know, I have no difficulty in calling that disruptive. Uh, folks who, um,
violate the rules that are clear set. You know, if the Mayor indicates there's
three minutes or five minutes or whatever you folks decide, you know, and,
um, person keeps talking or says, I don't care, I don't care what your rules
are, I'm still talking, well, that's clearly disruptive too. So, I mean, there are a
number of things that I think would be clear and obvious. Um, and again, it's
the presiding officer who makes that determination. Um, I think these rules
indicate that, you know, the presiding officer can look to me to, you know, for
confirmation or something, but it'll be the presiding officer making that call.
And, and I think most of the time it'll be pretty obvious.
Alter: Thank you. That, that helps. And actually I give, uh, Councilor Bergus a nod,
'cause it seems really actually the, the way to be able to understand this is
process versus content.
Bergus: I think that's exactly right. We can prescribe the time, the place and the
manner. We say three minutes addressing us from the podium or from Zoom,
um, during this prescribed time. But the content, the substance of what
they're saying is what we can't prohibit.
Harmsen: I think even germane, something being germane to the topic, I think that's
pretty solid ground as well. If we're having a hearing about issue X. And I
think, you know, if we say we're at a meeting and we re hearing from people
who are gonna talk about the rezoning of this piece of property, that the
people that speak in that specific part of the meeting need to speak to that
specific agenda item. I think that's safe. But I think when we get anything
more like into content like this, you know, this is, uh, this is insulting or this is
something like that. Uh, you know, when I read it as public of-, officials, we
don't have a lot of latitude there. Uh, the presumption is more free speech,
uh, in most, in most of what I've read. Um, and even, you know, there are
some, some very narrow exceptions where, you know, fighting words. Um,
although that, that definition's a little bit hazy, um, you know, clear and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 12
present threats, things like that. So there are a few things where the, the free
speech protections don't, um, legally and historically extend. Um, but I think
in terms of like just content -neutral, somebody speaking out of turn from the
audience, um, somebody going past their time, somebody who is clearly not
speaking to the agenda item, that's being there. Like those are content -
neutral. Um, in terms of, we're not judging like this offends me, this doesn't
offend me because that's when we get into trouble. Um, at least in terms of
like what the, you know, freedom of speech kinds of concerns, but the other
stuff I think, you know, we have the people's business to do. And when the
disruption is happening, we do have a duty to the, the, you know, to do the
conduct the business and a le-, as well as a legal right to conduct our
business, so.
Weiner: Yeah, I mean, I think that Mayor Pro Tem, I think, and my response to that
as well as just the very, the, the, the idea of germaneness, which is gonna be
up to the presiding officer just to, to decide, is this germane to the topic at
hand? Like, are you, are you talking about the corner of Scott and whatever it
is, and, or are you talking about something that really has nothing to do with
the decision we're making? And then that can, if, if they're not abiding, if, if
that's the case, then you, then the presiding officer can move of into the, um,
rules that are down below without us having to proscribe content.
Harmsen: And I think one other thing that works in our favor is that we provide
other avenues. So we do have that open comment section for things not on
the agenda. So we are, we are also, we are providing those other avenues,
those alternate avenues, um, of, of being heard. Um, additionally, you know,
there's other ways of communicating, which of course we're always allowed,
um, you know, other sorts of listening posts, uh, now that we're, we're
starting those again, um, you know, other kinds of avenues. So I think that
also, um, you know, helps us to do our duty, but also gives us the, you know,
to say, yeah, you can't, you know, we're talking about the zoning of this
particular piece of property, um, but certainly other issues we want to hear
from you that are important. And we're gonna give you this opportunity in
this open public comment section at the beginning of every meeting. And,
and, uh, as you know, noted, I think in, uh, Eric or somebody else, uh, you
know, there are, there are cities that are just, they just really, or I don't think
are acting in good faith. We'll give five minutes of public comment, total split
among the people that are here. That's, you know, that's, that's, uh, to me,
that's totally, it might be living up to the letter of the law, but certainly not
the spirit of it. Um, and I think we do, with the way we do it, we have, you
know, we're with the spirit of what we should be doing, I think, so.
Thomas: I, I think too, one of the struggles we're having is we're, we're in a, a
moment where having conversations isn't as easy as it would be normally.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 13
And I think we're all looking for conversations. I mean, I, I see that a, you
know, that's been one of the areas of friction at our meetings is, you know,
the community or the speaker expecting a response, and that's not the way
these meetings are structured, but, you know, I, I certainly would prefer
conversations and those can happen in other, other ways, other
opportunities for that. And I, I certainly hope that, um, you know, in the
coming months well be able to kind of return to the opportunity for having
those conversations, which are, are much, you know, an important part of, of
our decision making in, in our formal meetings. And it hasn't been able to
happen. So I, I, I think if, I hope if that returns the pressure on the, these
public formal meetings that we have will be relieved to a certain extent in
terms of having that opportunity.
Taylor: I agree with that. And I'm, I'm looking forward to the listening post that is
coming up, and I'm glad to see that unfortunately, uh, being Zoom, I, the, the
in person, uh, provided a much better avenue for that sort of, uh, face to face
and, and, uh, Councilperson to community member discussion. But, uh, I'll be
curious to see how many people do actually, uh, sign on to the zoom and, and
carry on the conversation. And, and I, I encourage, uh, public to do that 'cause
as, as John alluded to others, that that's, that's a good, appropriate time to, to
bring up those kinds of concerns and issues that, that, uh, you don't have time
on the agenda to talk about.
Teague: Lots of discussion so far. I, I just wanted to add that, um, at least for me,
when I think about, what is the purpose of these rules, what is the underlying
goal? And I think it's really to give, um, the public, the Council, staff,
everybody some expectations, a baseline. And, and I think it also, um, allows
us time to think about maybe some of the things that have happened in the
past and how can we create a, a, a, a space where people from the community
can come and, you know, share their concerns. The other thing that I'm, um,
clearly aware of is that by having these, um, you know, it could encourage
some people to, you know, uh, be disruptive or, or do some things. I, I, I am
more optimistic that that won't be the situation because I think the, the heart
of, the heart of this is really to ensure that everyone has opportunity. And I
think that, the, um, the, the overall thing that we'll see from having rules in
place is people that come here that have never been here before will feel
welcomed, and they won't be intimidated potentially, um, by something that
will scare them to come up and voice their own concern before their elected
officials. And so I, I, I, I think the, you know, the rules are, um, coming at a, at
a time where I think, um, the spirit is not to say, Hey, we want to be mean, we
want to, uh, really create this, you know, this, this order; it really is in the
spirit to make sure that everyone feels welcome to come and speak, not feel
intimidated, um, to get up and express themselves. And so I appreciate the
kind conversation so far. I, um, and it can continue. I'm not cutting it off. Um,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 14
I wanted to, um, so I've been making some notes and as, as I see it, um, the
committee may need to meet one more time to walk away with some of these
notes, to make sure that the intent of Council collaborative, um, voices are
expressed, but I wanted to maybe, um, unless our City Attorney has
clarification on number 22 and 21, um, about the slanderous, you know,
there was, there's some conversations surrounding that. I, at least for me, I'm
not exactly clear on what should be, uh, included and what will be removed.
Everything else I think is pretty, um, I think has been expressed very clearly.
Um, maybe Councilor Thomas did mention about the public hearings. Um,
you know, I, I don't know if that is something that, um, we want to, um, uh, if,
if you're proposing that we do something different, um, right now it is three
minutes. I, unless, you know, I, you know, if someone calle me ahead of time
or notified the City ahead of time that they wanted to do a longer
presentation, typically, uh, what I've encouraged them at that point is, is
there another person within your organization or within your affiliation that
has the same concern that can, you know, go back to back Um, and that's
actually been well received, um, because it was ahead of time. Now when
people come here and they're not aware, which is, you know, oftentimes the
situation, then that's where it becomes a little bit, uh, cumbersome. Most
times when we have extended, um, you know, um, engagement, um, beyond
the three minutes, um, I would say it either, it's from someone that hadn't
had that conversation yet, um, they weren't aware, uh, and they're very
passionate about what they need to express and share, um, and, and for
them, it does us seem abrupt. You know, that, you know, the three minutes
has ended. I'm not sure, you know, what the Council consensus is, but at least
in my experience, the three minutes has really worked. We used to be five
minutes. And when I first got on Council in 2018, our comments were five
minutes. We switched it to three minutes, um, maybe 2020, maybe 2019, but
it was five minutes when I first came to Council. Um, but I, I, you know, again,
I, I don't know how we would determine, um, if someone was to give five
minutes, I would just make mention that it, you know, um, surprisingly to a
lot of people that come, you know, the three minutes when they, they come
and they show up and they learn that it's three minutes and, you know, they
have something prepared. Uh, we've seen other people that come and they
have a line of like six people that do their presentation. Those are people that
are fully aware of the time limits. And they've been, you know, you know,
switching and Kellie just switches, you know, they come and introduce
themselves and Kellie just restarts the timer. So, you know, I think if the, and
oftentimes if it is, you know, a topic, any agenda item, typically that agenda
item, um, there are people from the community that, you know, there there's
gonna to be two sides, typically one that's for and one that's against. And so,
you know, many people will be sharing, you know, similar stories, um, on, on
both sides. Now, there are some presentations that I've witnessed that is very
entailed, that is beyond, um, you know, maybe the, the feelings related to the,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 15
to the, to the, the topic on the agenda and maybe bringing some more, um,
descriptive or some, some type of literature that, uh, identifies, you know,
some statistical points that we need to be made aware of or quantitative
points. But if, if we're thinking about switching the time limits, at least for me
as the current presiding officer, I think it, I, I would love for it to be very clear
to the public what, when we will increase. Um, and for me, the presiding
officer as well.
Thomas: Well, that, that's why I suggested the public hearing as a trigger. Um, and I,
I was just, um, as you were talking, I was remembering my first time
speaking at a City Council meeting and, uh, on a Planning and Zoning matter.
And I went way over, what, I don't even remember there being a limit, but
I'm, I'm sure I went over five minutes.
Teague: You made them start the limit.
Thomas: Yeah, I may have been, yeah, I could have been the trigger of, of the time
limit, but, um, I, I think that it, it's, a big part of this is the discretion issue on
the part of the presiding officer. Um, but it, it does seem to me, again, based
on, on what I've seen, that five minutes for public hearing items is
reasonable, but, you know, that can always be adjusted, you know, you know,
as, as appropriate by the presiding officer. I, I had kind of arrived at that. And
then I just briefly looked at other cities, Cedar Rapids actually landed in that
spot. It was five minutes for, um, public hearings. So I thought, oh, well, that's
interesting. Um, but, um, yeah, I, and maybe that's part of when the
committee gets back together is spending some time looking at other what
other comparable jurisdictions or, have structured, how they've structured
their meetings.
Teague: When it comes to, um, I, I wanna make one comment about, um, public
hearings. There are some jurisdictions, um, that require if, if it's a, um,
something related to an address you have to be within that you have to be
immediately affected. Um, and so no one outside of that address area, I don't
know how they determine the, the area that the, they, they cannot comment.
And so, I don't know if I'm not, I'm not suggesting we go there, but some of
those things do go into play if we look at other jurisdictions.
Thomas: Right. No, I was thinking specifically on the time limit aspect, uh, seeing
what other cities can, how they've structured their meetings.
Teague: And I will add that, um, at least one of the re rationale that I've spoke to
someone about while they do that is because these are the people that are
immediately impacted. Now, you know, that, that, that could be questioned
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 16
on a lot of levels, but that's why they're the ones that are allowed to speak.
And, um, but yeah.
Weiner: I mean, I, I guess what, I'm, what I might suggest as a, as a compromise is if
in a particular public hearing, it seems like people need more time than then
it would be good if the presiding officer could be consistent within that public
hearing. So if, like, if somebody needs five minutes, then you would offer five
minutes to other people who are in that particular public hearing.
Harmsen: Do you think we might be putting the presiding officer in sort of an, an
untenable situation though? Um, because the accusations of, well, you gave
this person five minutes, but you only let me have the three, or this last issue
that was an hour ago, they got five minutes, but now we're only getting three.
Um, as opposed, I know we do have a bit of an exception in these for like a
person, like the zoning issue. Like if somebody's presenting on something
and they're part of the agenda we have essentially allowed or invited them to
speak at more at length, because they're an agenda item. Um, so I wonder if, if
maybe we might be well intentioned and, uh, to give the presiding officer,
whoever that is, um, more like in the moment latitude, but we might also, I
wonder if there's not like a, uh, a stumbling block built into that, and I see
you,
Goers: Well -- I wanna be clear, you, you couldn't, or the presiding officer, couldn't
say speaker one gets five minutes, again, assuming they're not a party to the
rezoning or something like that, speaker one gets five minutes, speaker two, I
don't like you, so you get two minutes or something like that.
Harmsen: We wouldn't say that.
Goers: Yeah.
Harmsen: You couldn't say it or do it.
Goers: Uh, you couldn't do either of those things, but I could imagine a circumstance
in which there was, let's say a zoning item or something, and you know, you
as a Council, sit through 45 minutes worth of presentation, uh, on this item
first, and then you see 75 people lined up to speak about it. Oh, you know,
you could imagine a presenting officer at that point saying, okay, how many
people would like to speak to this, raise your hand. He looks out to a full
room and thinks, okay, maybe two minutes, you know, or, or something. So
it's that, I think it's that kind of, um, discretion that the rules are intended to
grant to the presiding officer. Not you get three, you get five, you know,
because I like you and I don't like you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 17
Alter: It seems also like it's worth pointing out that at that point, I know that there
have been arguments from audience, or certainly sentiments saying, you
know, let them speak more, you're cutting them off. But I think particularly
instance that you just described, and I have sat in one, multiple, um, public
hearings where there have been a lot of passion and a lot of people have
shown up, that this is not about cutting people off. It's allowing as many
people as possible to be able to speak albeit with a shorter time. So maybe
that's something that along with, not codified, but to a allow the presiding
officer to say, because there are so many people and we want to hear from so
many of you, we're cutting it down, just, again, to be transparent about why
this is happening. Um, I think could help that, again, I'm, I'm very mindful of,
uh, what you were talking about, Mayor, um, how these rules are not to
disengage or push people away. It's actually to welcome them so that people
know how to engage best. Um, in, in a way that's both, um, in an opportunity
for them, as well as for us to be able to hear what they're saying and conduct
our business, it's a kind of three parter, but to have that, that public speaking
component, when there's a lot of people with a lot of passion, to understand
that it's not so much an a matter of we're trying to curtail what you're saying
as it is, we want to be able to hear from as many people as possible, that
might be helpful.
Thomas: And, and we've, and I've certainly seen that where, you know, the Mayor
will say how many wish to speak to this item. And that, that then determines,
has an influence on the amount of time each person is given. Because yeah, if
it's a large number of people that can break the flow of the meeting and, and,
uh, not allow us to do the work, so. That's a, that's a critical variable.
Alter: Sure. And certainly, I don't mean to do that as a, as, as a, the other side of the
coin to your comments about allowing for people to, to have the time that
they want to speak. I mean, I think that it's a tricky wicket. You think that
we've sort of set the something out, but Councilor you're, you're also pointing
it out, that to the onus on the presiding officer can be difficult, but if there's
maybe some of that transparency and explanatory language in particular
circumstances, then at least, um, people understand where these, these
decisions are coming from, as opposed to it seeming like it's arbitrary.
Taylor: Well, I think it's also important for the audience to know that, kind of
relating to what you said, Councilor Harmsen, that the presenters, the
architects, the developers, the property owners, they're not held to that three
to five minute time limit, they're part of the presentation. And it could be five
minutes. It could be 10 minutes, but that's for our understanding of the
whole situation. Uh, I think that's been a misunderstanding on the part of
some of the audience, while you let them talk for that long. But I think it
needs to be clear. Uh, I don't know that we need the language in here, but
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 18
that the actual presenters, uh, have whatever time is necessary for them to,
uh, provide their topic. And I think that's important.
Weiner: I, I think one other thing that we noticed when there, when there are large
numbers of speakers is, um, frequently, many of them have a very similar
message. Um, and so if, if you, if the, if the time needs to be cut down in order
to accommodate more people that, um, that may be that may well be
sufficient.
Teague: Mm-hmm.
Harmsen: Do I think, I, I hear what you, one of the things that's being said here is
that a decision on adapting this time would happen, like before the public
comments on a particular issue start not once they have begun. So, you know,
if they've started at two minutes, uh, there wouldn't be a change like five
speakers in, or I think, I think that that's, here's the intention.
Teague: Sometimes it happens because we don't have a sign up ahead of time.
Harmsen: Sure.
Teague: Um, one thing that might be helpful is if we had a, uh, a time limit, I know
for our public comment, we have a max time limit of 30 minutes. Um, even if
it goes beyond 7:00 PM, the max time is 30 minutes. We don't have, you
know, clarify, which I'm not suggesting that we do, I have for the other
agenda items so far. Um, you know, I, I think at least for me, and, you know,
the presiding officer, have kind of gauged where the crowd is, especially if I
know it's a hot topic, I, Zoom was helpful, `cause we would have everyone
raise their hand and then I would see how many people and then, you know, I
would, you know, pretty much cut it down to two minutes and, and then just
say at this point we're gonna stop, um, after you know, this person, but, um,
and then other people would jump in, but just wouln't allow that, um, you
know. So it, you know, I think I can certainly state from the beginning, you
know, we have 20 people in line, you know, that type stuff, but there's only a
few items that are, um, that, that there'll be a crowd on. Um, and I think
that's kinda, maybe some of those items that, um, you're getting at, where
there might be an association that might come forth and have a longer
presentation, I think in the, you know, as I, I, I'm hearing all the comments, I
think there's a lot that goes into why it should be consistent across the board.
Um, I think, um, I, I, I get it and oftentimes some of those individuals, um, will
have one -on -ones with us and if they're gonna come, I think that's our
opportunity to say if you have a presentation, `cause typically they share that
presentation with us beforehand. Um, just let 'em know that it'll be three
minutes, although it could be dropped down to two, you know, um, and then
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 19
just make sure you have people to come up and uh, kind of keep the
conversation going. We have had, um, I think one, you know, a couple
instances where, um, someone wanted to give their time to someone else. I
don't know if that's something that we should, you know, entertain it. I know
I've sat here once and you know, someone needed to speak on their behalf
for whatever reason.
Harmsen: I think one of the rules here that they proposed that if you're we get down
that route, route is to say like, that could happen one time. Um, 'cause you
know, one thing you could see is somebody who wants to take over the entire
conversation could have 10 friends. And if we, you know, that's, that's half an
hour or 50 minutes, if we go to five minutes, you know, so I mean, so I think
there's, there could be some, like, a system that could be gamed if we went
too far down that, um, I think if we do that, the limit of like, you know, one
person could give their time as opposed to like, having, you know, uh, uh,
something that would just again, would derail the whole point of us being
here is to get the work done. So while hearing from as many people as
possible.
Teague: I guess if there is a little, yeah. You know, I, I, I, I think even one time we had
maybe an association that was speaking for a, a group of people that's stood,
you know, maybe, you know, in that instance, if it's only one person speaking,
10 people, you know, a lot of people here where we're only hearing from one
person and not 10, you know, but I, and I guess in that moment, you know, I
can look at Council and, and, and, and use my discretion at that point.
Goers: Well, just to be clear, under the present draft, they can only as, uh, Councilor,
um, Harmsen was suggesting only two people could combine into one for a
total of six minutes, or it would be 10 minutes if you went to five. Um, so if, if
you wanted to have more discretion than that, we, we would probably wanna
make a, an amendment to that part.
Bergus: I, what I heard the Mayor saying was that he would look to Council for a
majority to agree that it could be changed. Is that right, Mayor? 'Cause I think
the rules do provide for that.
Goers: Right, 'cause the rules can be amended by a majority, not, you know, they can
be set aside for a moment and so forth to allow for something else. If there's,
as you say, a majority of Council members agree.
Teague: Yep. And I've, I've done that when Council has kind of jumped in before.
Bergus: Yeah. And I feel like, Mayor, you've always handled that really well. I mean, I
feel like that's been really functional when we've had those few instances
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 20
where it's been kind of a different situation and we've been able to let the
public comment proceed in a way that I think better met the, the hope of the
people who were appearing.
Teague: Sure, sure. All right. So as far as the time and on the public hearing, um, I
just wanna make sure that I understand where we are. Are we keeping things
the same at the three minutes and with the discretion and if there's
something?
Harmsen: I kind of like the three minutes, although I take Council member
Thomas's, uh, comments, you know, are, are, you know, well, well
understood, but I still think three minutes, you know, is, is reasonable. Um,
you know, if we have, that is my thought.
Teague: Okay.
Weiner: If you organize yourself, you can say a lot in three minutes.
Bergus: I think there's value in having it be consistent throughout the meeting. Like I
appreciate what you're saying, John. Um, but I, I do think it could be
confusing for people if during public comment they can, they're limited to
three minutes, but then other people, you know, get five minutes. Um, I just
think for the expectation setting, it might be helpful to have it be throughout
the meeting members of the public can comment for three minutes. Unless
there's a big group and it gets limited.
Thomas: Well, I, I would also just say that whatever is decided, I think we need to
kind of observe how it works and, and see if in fact, uh, we feel that we're
hear from the community that, uh, they're being cut off. Um, you know, just
see how it works.
Teague: Mm-hmm, yep. Sounds good. I, um, because there's a few other things on
our, on our work session agenda, um, at least for the 22 and the 21, are you
good if we get together and kind of work through those or do you need a little
more?
Goers: Yes. What I would suggest is that I'll take another crack at, um, revising the
rules based on our discussion this evening. And then I'll circulate it to the
three members who have been involved in review, uh, previously. And, uh,
and then we could meet. Um, and then when you're, the three of you are
satisfied with what's, uh, been presented, then we'll bring it back to, um,
Council.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 21
Teague: And do we wanna bring it in a work session or do we feel like we're ready
to put it on the agenda for a formal vote? There, there isn't a lot of changes,
you know, overall.
Alter: I would be curious to know what the rest of Council feels. Um, I think it's
point, Rule 26, I think? Um, once we get into it, it is kind of the consequences
part. Um, it's not a fun thing to think about, but I, I would --
Teague: 23.
Alter: 23. Thank you. I would certainly want to get feedback from Council on that
before we worked these revisions in and then went to a vote. I would very
much like to hear what people have to say on that. So, I mean, whether that's
that we carry it over or that we talk about it now, or I don't know, and I
apologize for lengthening the conversation, I didn't want it to go on, but it
just seems to me that this is sort of an important thing for us to work
through.
Teague: Sure. And as I see it as progressive.
Alter: Mm-hmm.
Teague: You know, it, it, it just increases. Um, the hope is that we don't have to get to
any of that.
Alter: Absolutely.
Bergus: I don't -- I guess my feedback would just be on that, that I'm not
comfortable with it, including those things that we think are not enforceable.
So like as written. So that, the, the next, uh, draft, I think that our City
Attorney will bring us to kind of separate out those things that are
aspirational versus what would be enforceable, um, you know, I'm, I'm
comfortable with this, given that it's, um, if it was only those things that are
actually, you know, that, which we can kind of, uh, legally enforce and stand
behind, and the fact that it's at a single meeting. Right. So it doesn't that it's,
it's sort of you, it's not, um, it's intended to be sort of the, I don't know quite
how to say it, but that it's, um....
Harmsen: Cumulative?
Bergus: Right. So, yeah, it's on one or more occasions during a Council meeting.
Right. And so it's not like if you get a verbal warning at one meeting, then the
next meeting you're gonna jump right to step two. Right?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 22
[several voices]: Right.
Alter: Right. No, I don't think, that wasn't our....
Bergus: So that makes me more comfortable with it.
Teague: I'm not sure that that was my, you know, you can certainly still get a verbal
warning at each meeting.
Bergus: Right.
Teague: You know, but if it, but at some point it may jump quickly to, you know,
being directed to leave because you know this individual, you know, it's their
second time up, you know, it's gonna be a little more progressive.
Alter: You're, are you suggesting within a meeting? Are you --
Teague: Sure, it's still within a meeting. Um, but once you get to being suspended
from a, you know, or attending one or more meetings, you know, then that's
probably where the other, you know, two can, you know, come into play.
Bergus: Yeah. I mean, I, yeah, for me, I'd like to kind of see the separated out list and
then, you know, like I said, I'm pretty comfortable with, I think how it's
framed up. I still don't ever wanna arrest someone at a meeting. Um, but
that's, I know, I think I've made that clear before. I had a couple really small
things that I just wanna throw out if we're doing a revision.
Teague: Sure.
Bergus: Did we wanna say anything about work sessions? So the only place that I
saw work, work session mentioned was the limitation to public comment,
which is on, um, Rule 18. But I didn't know if it was confusing for members of
the public that the framing of meetings in this whole document is really
formal meetings. And maybe just some nod to the fact that work sessions
exist and they don't run this way.
Goers: Sure, I can add something to that.
Bergus: And then under Rule 26, um, I just don't know about the word debate. So
maybe in Robert's Rules, that's clearer, but, um, I think in my mind, that's
Council discussion, as far as when that happens in the meeting at the
conclusion of debate, the presiding officer shall call for a vote, or we can call
the question. Um, I don't know if maybe for, if we don't ever use the term
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 23
debate, maybe using the term, um, Council discussion is clearer. I might be
alone in thinking that, but.
Goers: I'm sorry. I missed the beginning of which rule you were referring to.
Bergus: Rule 26, the call for vote.
Goers: Got it.
Bergus: Maybe we need to be debating more. I don't know. I don't feel like we
debate. There's certainly me that have much more formal debate format, but
that's not us. Those are my only other comments. Thank you.
Harmsen: I, I would agree with, uh, Council member Bergus and, and, and Council
member Alter. Um, Rule 23, I actually had more misgivings about if we were
leaving it to the presiding officer to decide, for instance, you know, what is
disrespectful or whatever the verbiage is and some. But if we take that out
and we are, we are making that more clear and we're being more content -
neutral. Um, I have less, less, uh, problems. And I just wanna point out too,
this is, uh, one of the things too, as I read through this and, and, and you'd
asked earlier about, should I come back from another work session? I'm
inclined to think so, um, just because we're making these rules for, you know,
whoever comes next. So it's not just the people that are here. Um, so, you
know, we wanna make sure that, you know, what we leave, we're kind of
passing forward to the people that might be sitting at these seats, you know,
5, 6, 7, 3, 2, whatever number of years in the future. Um, you know, whereas,
so it's, it's any, any hesitation I give about this is no reflection at all on the
current mayor, um, or mayor pro tem or anybody else. It's just like, we sort of
make these rules for whoever comes next. And so, so I wanna make sure we
don't like, you know, accidentally, you know, put something in place that that
will regret.
Teague: Mm-hmm. All right,
Goers: I just wanna say on that point, just to be clear, this will be adopted by a
resolution. And so, you know, if either this Council or future council decides
they'd like to have a change either significant or insignificant, one, you know,
one resolution and that's all it's required for the change. The other point I
would wanna make is, you know, kind of, regardless of where, you know, you
folks all end up with this, I'm confident that there will be, you know, an
educational process, uh, for the public --
Teague: Mm-hmm.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 24
Goers: -- uh, that'll probably involve of kind of projecting of some rules here, maybe
some notices, you know, at the sign in sheet over there, we obviously want
members of the public to, to fully know and understand what the rules are
and the rationale behind them before, you know, they speak, because as you
say, I mean, sometimes folks, you know, just inadvertently violate the rules
because they just don't know what they are. And so I, I think it's clear that
we'll plan to do a better job of, of educating the public about what these rules
are.
Teague: Any other comments on this? All right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 25
Clarification of Agenda Items
Teague: We'll move on to info, information packets or, well, actually clarification of
agenda items. I do know that Council Bergus will be recusing herself from
item number 9A.
Bergus: That's correct. Thank you.
Teague: Any other things from the formal agenda?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 26
Information Packet Discussion [January 20, January 27]
Teague: Moving on to information packet January 20th...moving on to information
packet January 27th, and we do have IP7, which is going to be, uh, the, the
Council proposed, um, annual, uh, formal meeting and work session schedule.
So typically, um, oh, hand it over to our City Clerk.
Fruehling: Well, I just went with the first and third Tuesdays, uh, and, and laid it all
out there. Um, I did note one, um, holiday in October, which is Yom Kippur.
Um, and then I know, you know, in the past, typically there's been some
reduced meeting schedule, uh, in the summer and then in December. Uh, and
I don't know if the mayor had some suggestions for that. Uh, and then we
may have to work backwards, depending on, on that to kind of space out the
meetings.
Teague: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think, um, if you look at July, if we tackle the summer
schedules, um, maybe first, if that's of interest to kinda in, in the, in the
December schedule, then we can work on, um, the October 4th. So as I see it, I
mean, it, you know, our second meeting would be the 21st in June, and then if
we were to go three weeks out, well, that would be the 12th, which would be
the second Tuesday in July. And then that would bring us to another three
weeks, August 2nd. So it would just put us at the 12th where we would have
our meeting and it would only be one in July. So it'd be three weeks between
the meetings before.
Weiner: It's fine with me.
Alter: Me too.
Teague: That's okay.
Teague: All right. Look like we have a majority there. So, and then, and, and I, I, I
actually think we kind of really need everybody on board if we're switching
meetings. So if anyone has any challenge, I think they should let us know. Um,
so in November we have, if, you know, the 15th is kind of, in, in, in November,
um, that's the third, Tuesday, if we go three out, that brings us to the 6th of
December, which is our first Tuesday that we would meet, and then it would
be four weeks before we meet again. So would people rather meet on the
sixth or the third? Do you want the three weeks? You know, I think I would
prefer the three, I mean, the three weeks.
Alter: Can you repeat that, Mayor?
Teague: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 27
Alter: Of the actual dates that you're suggesting.
Teague: So the date for December meeting will only be on the sixth --
Alter: Mm-hmm.
Teague: -- and I went, uh, back to the November meeting. The last meeting would be
the 15th.
Alter: Oh, okay. So there would be no changes then.
Teague: No changes in November, but there would be three weeks be-- it would be
three weeks naturally anyway.
Alter: Gotcha.
Teague: Um, because our first meeting would be on the sixth, so we wouldn't, we
would just cancel the second meeting in December. Again, if there is a need to
add any, add a meeting, which we've had to do, we would do that for
whatever the need is and find a date, even if it's the original date that we
normally meet.
Thomas: Cancel December 20th, is that --
Teague: Correct, cancel December 20th. All right. Hearing no conflicts, we'll now
discuss October.
Weiner: Yep. So if you, uh, what I can tell you is that if, if you maintain the, the
October 4th date, I will not be there because Yom Kippur starts at, um, at
sundown that day on the 4th.
Thomas: Mm-hmm.
Weiner: So it's preparation and going into the holiday as opposed to coming out of
the holiday.
Teague: What I, what I might propose is that we find another day during that week,
Monday or Wednesday. Typically, I think if we're thinking that well,
information, you know, the public would already be noticed 24 hours. I don't
know if there's a preference for staff, if we go Monday or Wednesdays.
Weiner: Just so you know, Wednesday doesn't help me.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 28
Teague: I'm -- I'm sorry.
Weiner: Wednesday doesn't help.
Taylor: Right.
Teague: Oh. Sure. We'll go, how about Mondays?
Weiner: Mondays is fine. And then I, I'm just letting you know --
Teague: Oh, sure --
Weiner: -- what the, what the schedule that holiday is.
Teague: So, um, would people agree to Monday?
Alter: Absolutely.
Bergus: October 3rd. Yeah.
Teague: October 3rd? Great.
Weiner: Thank you.
Teague: Yes. All right. There could be some, um, as we go through our, uh, all that
we're doing, we, there could be some desire to have some work, longer work
sessions potentially. Um, so we might find that we might, um, collapse a
formal meeting, um, and have a longer work session, but as we go along,
we're gonna do our strategic, strategic planning. And I think there's, you
know, I've been hearing from people that they want to do some work. I know
Councilor Thomas wanted, you know, kind of dig into some stuff. And so we
may, you know, collapse some of our formal meetings and have longer work
sessions, but we'll figure that out as we go along. So there could be some
changes coming in the future.
Weiner: Yeah. This, this calendar manages to miss Election day in November, which
is great. Um, I would just point out that I don't, and I don't know if that
matters to the Council, but the Tuesday, the meeting on Tuesday, June 7th is
the day of the, the state, of the statewide primary. Um, if you wanna hold it
that day, that's fine. I just wanna make sure everybody's aware.
Teague: Yeah. I think what we've done in the past is we've held them on Election
Day, unless it is a sitting Councilor that is on the ballot...which we would have
a sitting Councilor on the ballot. So, I mean, we would have a sitting Council
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 29
on the ballot, so I don't, I, my pre-- my proposal would be that we go Monday
the 6th, the day before I know that puts a lot of stress on any candidate the
day before. Um...
Weiner: If you haven't done your work by, by Monday evening, there's...you're outta
luck.
Teague: Yeah. So would people be okay with June 6th, Monday?
Bergus: Yes.
Teague: All right. So there we have it. Any other items that we need to, you know,
take into consideration? Again, I think November 1st would be Election ay
and, um, well, well cross that later.
Weiner: No, it's the, it's the 8th. So basically our current schedule skips election,
skips the November election day this year.
Teague: Oh, nice. Okay.
Taylor: It's the second Tuesday, right.
Teague: All right. Problem solved there. Any other item with the calendar? All right.
You got all that. Great. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 30
University of Iowa Student Government (USG) Updates
Teague: We are going to move on to the next agenda item, which is, uh, the
University of Iowa Student Government, USG.
Miglin: Hi, Council. Um, so we've received nearly 300 responses in our homeless
week survey sent out to students, um, and, uh, students based on students
experiences prior to our upcoming, coming meeting with City officials
tomorrow. Um, look at our previous announcements for the link, which I
realize I haven't sent out to you all. And we'll be sending out with these
announcements, um, after our meeting today. Um, we are hiring a, uh, new
director of communications, graphic designer and photographer. Um, those
position applications for students are open until Sunday. Um, uh, the
university is continuing to provide free at-home testing for students across
campus. And these tests can be found at the Welcome Desk at the IMU, uh,
Student Health offices and in residential halls. Um, we are also beginning our
Governmental Relation Capitol Visits, uh, days. Uh, these will start from
February to April for USG members to have a chance to advocate for issues at
the Iowa Capitol. Um, and we to bring some USG students to City, um, soon as
well. Um, and finally our sustainability -- sustainability director is looking at,
uh, on how to potentially recycle masks. Um, let us know if you know anyone,
um, uh, if anyone knows about any current efforts that are happening around
Iowa City or in other communities related to this. Um, but that is all. Thank
you.
Teague: Thank you. And you'll see that USG has given comment during our work
session. And so we're gonna try this out in the, and see, um, how this plays
out. So thank you, always happy that you're here with us.
Miglin: Thank you. I'm happy to be here too.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 31
Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees
Teague: Yes. All right. Council updates on boards, on assigned boards, commissions
and committees.
Taylor: We had our recent MPO meeting and, and I was, uh, very pleased that our
own John Thomas was elected as chair for that entity, uh, very proud. And he
ran that meeting and it went very smoothly. So congratulations --
Teague: Congrats.
Taylor: -- uh, John, uh, and that meeting, a large portion of it. And I know Laura
appreciates this, our Councilor Bergus, 'cause this is near and dear to her.
Um, a large portion was discussion, uh, continued on the commuter rail, uh,
project. Um, it's been talked about any years now. It was a little disappointing
to hear that perhaps CRANDIC might not plan to, um, support it staffing or
financially. So that was a little disappointing to hear, uh, but that's not going
to stop the project. Um, uh, it's going to continue to be discussed, uh, at next
several meetings, but, but that was a good meeting, and congratulations,
John.
Thomas: Thank you.
Bergus: Uh, I was just gonna second that as far as the MPO meeting and John, I really
liked that video that you had us watch. I meant to tell you that. So it was a
really cool little, three minute video about, uh, um, pedestrian -bicycle modes
of transportation and, uh, with all children speaking to their experiences, uh,
getting around a city and how empowering and important that is. That was
great. I attended my first ECICOG meeting, uh, virtually. So, you know, in a
hybrid situation, I really still don't know who most of the members are, but
we'll, we'll get there.
Weiner: The ECICOG, speaking of ECICOG, the ECICOG visioning process is, is for
2030, I guess, is starting to come to a close that we have a virtual meeting
this Thursday, and then the rollout, as far as I know on the afternoon of
March 1st, which will start sometime before this Council meeting at the, um,
at the Cedar Ridge brewery.
Teague: We had the Joint Entities meeting and, um, it was in-person and virtual, uh,
hybrid option. Um, the one suggestion that Iowa City put forth was to have
childcare, uh, a childcare discussion, that was well received. Thank you, um,
Mayor Pro Tem Alter for kind of bringing this, um, to our attention. And so
between now and then I think we'll work with some, uh, childcare partners
within the community to kind of just come and do a little bit of a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.
Page 32
presentation. I think one of the things that I did here is that, um, um, you
know, it's great to keep the conversations going, but there's also a, a point
where we need to have some action. And so hopefully it'll be some actionable
items that cities can walk away with, whether that's grants, federal, state, or
local funds. So it will hope to get something more tangible to people in the
updates. Hearing nothing else. We are adjourned until seven, 6:00 PM. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of February 1, 2022.