Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-14 Charter Review CommissionCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Thursday, May 14, 2024 5:30 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Adopt Draft Minutes as Presented or Amended • Draft minutes for 04/25/2024 3. Review of draft proposals for Preamble and Article 1: Powers of the City 4. Review of City Charter: Article II — City Council 5. Tentative Meeting Schedule — 21d Tuesday and 41 Thursday @5:30pm • Thursday, May 23 • Tuesday, June 11 • Thursday, June 27 • Tuesday, July 9 6. Community Comment Charter Review Commissioners cannot engage in discussion or debate in accordance with open meeting laws. Individuals will be provided 3 minutes to speak. The Community Comment period will last no more than 15 minutes. The Chair reserves the right to reduce the 3-minute period based on the number of individuals desiring to speak. Additional comments can be sent to the Charter Review Commission via ICCharter@iowa- city.org . 7. Adjournment if you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this program/event, please contact Kellie Grace at 319-356-5041, kgrace@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. MINUTES CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2024 — 5:30 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL DRAFT Members Present: John Balmer, John Deeth, Gerene Denning, Matt Hayek, Molly Kucera, Bijou Maliabo, Jennifer Patel Members Absent: Susan Craig, Makenzie DeRoo Staff Present: City Attorney Goers, Deputy Clerk Platz (Videos of the meetings are available at citychannel4.com typically within 48 hours) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. MOTION TO ADOPT DRAFT MINUTES AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED Moved by Patel, seconded by Maliabo to approve the April 9, 2024, draft minutes as presented. Motion carried 7-0, Craig and DeRoo absent. 3. MOTION TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE Motion by Deeth, seconded by Kucera to accept correspondence from Andrew Dunn and Martha Hampel. Motion carried 7-0, Craig and DeRoo absent. 4. REVIEW OF CITY CHARTER: PREAMBLE, DEFINITIONS. ARTICLE I: POWERS OF THE CITY Chair Balmer noted the suggested changes by Commissioner Denning that were included in the meeting packet. Balmer stated the Commission would not be making any decisions but rather getting a consensus on the suggested changes and circle back at a later date for approval. Preamble: Denning presented the commission with a late handout with additional proposed changes to the preamble which included language from the Model City Charter which was included in the April 9, 2024 meeting packet. Vice Chair Kucera outlined Denning's recommended changes to the Preamble 1.(A) and 1.(B), which combined the example from the Model Charter in red and the current City Charter. References were included in bold italics. Denning noted the addition of item number 5 adding it could be referred back to throughout the review process. City Attorney Goers expressed concern with 1.(B) regarding discrimination as the City has its own Human Rights ordinance which is updated more often than what the Charter would be noting that the Charter could become out of date. Kucera asked if the text should reflect the City Code. City Attorney Goers will draft some recommended language and bring to next meeting. Commissioner Hayek asked City Attorney Goers if there were any legal risks with the language in 1(A). Charter Review Commission April 25, 2024 Page 2 Goers stated there was possible risk with some of the language and provided examples. Commissioners offered suggested language. Goers offered to draft language for 1(A) & 1(B) for the next meeting. Hayek stated as the Commission goes through the review process, they should be careful of unintended consequences and Goer's input will be helpful to avoid those issues. Commissioner Maliabo asked for clarification in the language "interactions with the public" in number 4. Goers explained that the idea of the current language is that we take the mindset of being public servants and customer satisfaction kind of view towards our interactions with members of the public within limits. Chair Balmer confirmed item 5 was directly from the Model Charter. Goers stated he did not have any concerns with the language. Definitions: Commissioner Deeth noted he would like to see Eligible Elector and Qualified Elector to merged to Eligible Elector stating the definition of Eligible Elector was close to current law which is eligible to register to vote and to carry that definition throughout the document. Commissioners discussed Elector versus Eligible Elector. There was consensus to remove #8 and renumber the rest of the definitions. Commissioner Maliabo agreed the language was confusing and also recommended just having eligible elector. Commissioner Denning noted that potential changes in the future discussions could change definitions. Vice Chair Kucera questioned the ordinance numbers at the end of item 12. City Attorney Goers stated that the numbers listed are when that section of the Charter was last updated and that the Commission would not be making any adjustments to those. Maliabo asked for confirmation that the definitions were last amended in 2005. Goers confirmed the last amendment was in 2005. Article I: Powers of the City Commissioner Denning noted the suggested addition in Section 1.01 of "The city shall have' as it is stronger language. Commissioner Hayek agreed it reads better with "shall have'. Denning also noted in Section 1.03 the addition of "then" and should read "invalid, then the invalidity shall not". Denning stated she would like to add a Section 1.04. Intergovernmental Relations. Vice Chair Kucera agreed and noted this item was pulled directly from the Model City Charter. City Attorney Goers advised he will review State Code Chapter 28E and will ensure there are no inconsistencies that would limit the City's ability. 5. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE Chair Balmer proposed using the May meetings to discuss Article It. City Council and concentrate on Section 2.02 Council Districts and Section 2.06 Mayor. Commissioner Denning advised she will be gone for both May meetings. Commissioner Deeth noted he may be late to the May 23rd meeting. Vice Chair Kucera confirmed the future meeting structure to be roughly 45 minutes of discussion and 15 minutes for public comment. 6. COMMUNITY COMMENT: Individuals present: Martha Hampel. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Maliabo, seconded by Patel to adjourn the meeting at 5:59 P.M. Motion carried 7-0, Craig and DeRoo absent. Charter Review Commission April 9, 2024 Page 3 Charter Review Commission - 2024 ATTENDANCE RECORD NAME TERM EXP. A O n A A O N A A N N N John Balmer 4/1/25 X X X Susan Craig 4/1/25 X X O/E John Deeth 411125 X X X Gerene Denning 4/1125 X X X Mackenzie DeRoo 411/25 X X O/E Matt Hayek 4/1/25 X X X Molly Kucera 4/1/25 X X X Bijou Maliabo 411125 X X X Jennifer Patel 4/1125 X X X Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a member CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: 5/9/24 To: Charter Review Commission From: Eric R. Goers, City Attorney RE: Responses to April 25, 2024 meeting discussions As part of your discussions at your April 251h meeting, you asked that I do several things in advance of your next meeting. Those include the following: 1. Draft an amended proposal for Preamble section 1(a), based on the proposal provided by Commissioner Denning, so as to prevent overbreadth in the rights being conveyed to residents; and 2. Draft an amended proposal for Preamble section 1(b), based on the proposal provided by Commissioner Denning, so as to track federal, state and local law in the listing of protected classes, and 3. Review the Charter to search for uses of the term "Qualified Elector', to see if there is a good reason not to collapse that term into the definition of "Eligible Elector'; and 4. Review the Section 1.04 proposed by Commissioner Denning to reconcile it with Iowa Code Chapter 28E, and to explore whether the City contracts or otherwise partners with individual states other than Iowa. I have drafted the following in response. 1. Draft an amended proposal for Preamble section 1(a) based on the proposal provided by Commissioner Dennina. so as to orevent overbreadth in the riqhts being conveyed 2. Here is the original proposed change: a. in all aspects of life. Here is the revised proposal addressing our limited ability to make guarantees: a. Each individual shall have the opportunity to participate in the economic cultural and intellectual life of the city. listing of protected classes. Here is the original proposed change: Page 1 of 2 3. 4. L9 or mental disability. Here is the revised proposal as requested, tracking the City Code protected class categories, and limiting the language to prohibited discrimination: b. Discrimination prohibited by Title 2 of this Code shall not be tolerated I would note that including this provision is essentially repetitive of Title 2, which lays out the protected classes and the exceptions and limitations of those protections. It is possible that some cities do not have their own Human Rights ordinance, such that the model language might not be duplicative in all cases. Query whether we wish to list all protections provided in the City Code in the Charter as well. the a The term "Qualified Elector" appears eight times in the Charter — in the Definitions section, as well as sections 2.01, 3.02, 3.03, 7.01, 7.02, 7.05, and 7.06. The term also appears in the City Code, in 1-7-2 (City Officers), 14-7A-1 (Planning and Zoning Commission), 14-7A-2 (Board of Adjustment), and 14-7A-3 (Historic Preservation Commission.) Because the term is repeatedly used not only in the Charter, but in the remainder of the City Code, I would recommend preserving the definition of "Qualified Elector." Here is the original proposed change: Section 1.04. Intergovernmental Relations The city may participate by contract or otherwise with any governmental entity of this state or any other state or states or the United States in the performance of any activity which one or more of such entities has the authority to undertake would suggest we exclude this language, as Iowa Home Rule, Iowa Chapter 28E, and various federal laws already provide for the opportunity to contract in this fashion. The more things we specifically list among our powers the more apt we are to face an expressio unius est exclusio alterius legal argument (`the expression of one thing is the exclusion of all others.") Page 2 of 2 #4. Submitted by Chair Balmer Year Registration Voters % Notes Primary Registration Primary voted % Primary notes 1975 8,472 All seven seats on ballot 1977 11,027 Ballot issue -jail bond 4,164 AL 8 candidates 1979 10,332 5,914 AL 8 candidates, 4 each Dist A & C 1981 8,519 3,644 AL 10 candidates 1983 7,245 Ballot issue - rent control 3,482 AL 7 candidates 1985 4,574 Ballot issue to change district election procedure 701 Dist B only, 3 candidates 1987 5,691 1989 37,605 8,826 23.5%Ballot issue - WalmartZoning 1991 40,522 9,648 23.8% Ballot issue - library levy 1993 36,984 7,929 21.4% 36,935 5,144 13.9% AL candidates ,2 yrterm 4 candidates 1995 39,415 10,097 25.6% 39,093 5,460 14.0% ALB candidates 1997 35,782 9,200 25.7% Ballot issue - 1st Avenue 1.0 35,566 5,498 15.5% AL 8 candidates, Dist B 3 candidates 1999 36,495 7,842 21.5% 36,101 2,475 6.9% AL 5 candidates, Dist A 3 candidates 2001 41,192 10,668 25.9% 39,927 5,274 13.2% AL 9 candidates, Dist B 4 candidates 2003 38,849 8,101 20.9% 37,797 4,300 11.4% AL 9 candidates, Dist C 3 candidates 2005 45,561 13,366 29.3% Ballot issue - public power 45,137 3,840 8.5% AL 6 candidates 2007 45,844 15,728 34.3% Ballot Issue - 21 Bar 1.0 41,169 3,182 7.7% AL 5 candidates 2009 48,422 4,685 9.7% 48,350 1,874 3.9% AL 5 candidates 2011 51,248 6,968 13.6% 50,820 2,609 5.1% AL 7 candidates 2013 48,817 10,928 22.4% Ballot issue - 21 Bar 3.0 2015 45,177 6,865 15.2% 2017 46,598 7,244 15.5% 2019 47,814 6,992 14.6% first combined city/school election 2021 42,199 8,398 19.9% Ballot issue -school levy 2023 33,973 9,989 29.4% 9,860 649 6.6% Dist A only, 3 candidates Special Elections Special Election Primaries Jan-89 6,934 1Two separate At Large terms (Balmer, Kubby) 1 2,787 3 candidates for 3 year term Jul-931 1 5,918 21% 21% turnout. District C seat (Larson > Pigott) 1 1,088 15% Dist C only, 3 candidates Oct-181 46,4611 4,1991 9.0% At Large (Botchway > Teague) 1 45,6781 3,9661 8.7% AL 5 candidates Registration figures are Active status. Major changes in registration law: 1995 - Motor Voter, NCOA process, beginning of "Inactive" status. 2008 - Election Day Registration. 2021- Inactive status if voter misses a general election :94. Iowa City is, fundamentally, a college town. The University of Iowa is the economic and cultural engine that makes our community what it is. Yet for decades, the students who bring the money, create the jobs, and give the community its life have not had a seat at the table of city government. We have a great track record of election other diverse Council members: multiple LBGTQ+ members, two Black mayors, and the first Sudanese -American elected anywhere in the nation. Yet until Council Member Dunn's uncontested race last year, no student age individual had been elected to the Council in over 40 years, since David Perret in 1983. And no renter had been elected since Karen Kubby's earlier terms (starting in 1989). A representative group of seven Iowa Citians should include on average two undergrad students Countless issues, including housing and rental issues, and the Bar Wars of 2007-2013, could have played out differently if the Iowa City student community were represented by voting members. The argument of course is made "the students are only here for four years." That is true for individual students — but the student community is a permanent part of the community. One answer to this issue might be two year terms for some seats. A student could get to town, get their bearings, and then serve a couple years before moving on — or staying, as I and countless other Iowa Citians who came here to attend the University have done. The other issue is the district system and voting patterns. In order to win a seat on the council, a candidate must win city-wide — and there is a long term pattern of the home owner neighborhoods refusing to vote for younger candidates. For this reason, I would hope to see a larger council and smaller districts, and at least some seats chosen by only the voters of the district. Before I came to Iowa City in 1990, I had spent my whole life in Wisconsin college towns. Wisconsin's city council model is different. They have precinct sized wards and a larger body, roughly a couple dozen in the places I lived. I liked that model. There was always a student or two on the city council. Some places treated the student members as equals, others treated them as a nuisance, but they had a voting seat at the table While there is an argument to be made for some at -large members and some longer terms, there needs to be a way to elect some young people to the Council without requiring them to win a nearly impossible city-wide vote. I am not sure what Iowa law allows for a larger body and smaller wards, but I hope we can look into the possibilities. John Deeth Charter Review Commissioner Submitted by Commissioner Denning COMMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE II Commissioner Gerene Denning I was not sure how far the commission would get into Article II for the meetings I would miss, so I am sharing all my thoughts now. From our original discussions of the charter, I believe we identified issues to consider in Article II, Sections 2.01, 2.02, 2.06 and 2.12. I. COMMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE II, Section 2.01 Added/changed language for consideration is in red underlined font. Deletions are in blue with strikethrough. I tried to be comprehensive in addressing available public comments on this issue. The term "Commission Report" refers to The Model City Charter Commission Report. Thank you for considering the following. I would support changes along the lines of ... Article II, Section 2.01 Section 2.01. Composition. The city council shall consist of seven members as provided in Article III. Four councilmembers, to be known as councilmembers at large, are to be nominated and elected by eligible electors of the city at large, and three, to be known as district councilmembers, are to be nominated and elected by eligible electors of their respective districts. Alkcouncilmember--s-shall-� 2'�Tikie qualified-etectef--�ity-at- las (Ord. 85-3273, 12-17-1985) The Council will also include a non -voting ex-officio student body to serve as a representative of UI students. Reasoning for changes in selection of district councilmembers: General Point #1. The ongoing debate about a change allowing district voters to choose their own representative appears to be framed as — we should compare the current system with the system that includes direct democracy and decide which one is the same or better but not worse than the other — with the burden of proof being placed on district voters to "prove" their case. I struggled for some time trying to fairly consider all the arguments for each side within this framing without success. I then decided that this framing may be incorrect, as well as unfair, and I also speculate that this poor framing may be contributing to the intractable nature of the current debate. Why is this a poor frame for the debate? • Since we cannot predict the future and we will never be able to measure all the things we need to measure to compare the two systems, it is an impossible task. In addition, deciding what is "better" or "worse" can be very subjective. • Thus, how is it fair to ask district voters to prove the impossible? • Furthermore, how is it fair to place the burden of proof on district voters to be allowed to do what district voters in every other case are allowed to do? • Overall, framing the debate in these terms significantly advantages the current system and conversely disadvantages those advocating for change. Submitted by Commissioner Denning I would suggest that by framing the debate using basic principles that I think we can all agree on (see General Point #2), we may be able to come closer to consensus on this issue. General Point #2. It is a basic principle of representative democracy that the people have the right to choose their own representative. In the context of this debate, that would mean that the people of a district have the right (in a representative democracy) to choose their district representative. It would further mean that there would need to be a very compelling argument as to why the people of a district are denied this basic right. General Point #3. Our current system fails to acknowledge and guarantee this right. Moreover, an undesirable aspect of our system (which I am sure is completely unintentional) is that it is rather paternalistic. It seems to imply that the voters in a district cannot be trusted and/or are not able to choose their own representative and that the twice as many voters outside the district should help them get it right. A system that denies voters their basic rights and is paternalistic is by definition in a representative democracy a problem that should be fixed. Comments in support of changing the way district representatives are elected: 1. Of course, the major argument made above that district voters have a basic right to choose their own representative is the most compelling argument. However, other arguments can be made. 2. Question: Why are districts created? Answer: It is believed that a selection system that is closer to the people is - one that is more likely to facilitate better communication between the people and their representative, one in which the people can more easily hold their representative to account, and one more likely to result in a representative who best understands the problems in the district and can best advocate for solutions to those problems. Overall, this is an evidence -based belief. The fact that direct democracy in districts does not work perfectly, since no system does, should not be used as an argument against it. 3. On the role and importance of districts elected by eligible voters in the district, the Commission Report states, "Underrepresentation of specific interests is always a potential outcome of at -large elections" and "Community members may feel isolated from and unconnected to their government without some geographical basis of representation." See page 15 of the report. 4. Similarly, the benefits of direct democracy in districts are mentioned multiple times in the Commission Report. For example, the report "states a preference for the use of district elections or combinations of district and at -large seats to ensure that the council accurately represents the population as a whole and to promote a closer relationship between council members and residents." See page 6 of the report. 5. Our current system is essentially one in which we have seven at -large council seats, i.e., seven councilmembers elected by voters at large. Three of these councilmembers have limitations on where they can live. While limiting where three councilmembers can live ensures geographical diversity, that alone may fail to adequately achieve the other benefits of having direct democracy in districts. 6. The Commission Report indicates that the only circumstances under which electing all councilmembers at large would be appropriate is in a small, demographically Submitted by Commissioner Denning homogeneous city. See page 15 of the report. Iowa City is not such a city and thus not one where all seats being elected at large would be advised by expert opinion. Comments and responses related to maintaining the current system: 1. For arguments along the lines of "the current system is working pretty well', ask yourself this, "in what context would I accept being denied any other of my basic voting rights because things were working pretty well?" Please note that I am not arguing that we do not in general have very good city councils. 2. For counter -arguments to arguments along the lines of the change to direct democracy is "a solution in search of a problem", and "unless you have a reason to change the current voting system - why do it?" see General Point #3. 3. There appear to be two other general arguments expressing concerns about allowing district voters to elect their own representative: a. The risk of too much parochialism distorting the decision -making process to the detriment of the citywide good. b. Seeking direct democracy in district elections is part of a hidden agenda that is designed to change our non -partisan system into a partisan one. 4. Parochialism is a term that refers to a district councilmember who is unwilling or unable to consider the citywide good in their decision -making and one who may engage with other district councilmembers in ways referred to as "log -rolling", "vote swapping" etc. that could cumulatively result in a decision that ignores the citywide good. In this respect: a. The Commission Report indicates that parochialism can be a serious concern in need of fixing under two conditions (1) a city council composed of all district councilmembers or (2) a city council composed of some at -large members but a much greater number of district members. See page 15 of the report. Neither of these conditions applies to our city council. b. If we were to change the system to implement direct democracy in the election of district councilmembers, we would have a ratio of at -large to district seats (4:3) that should adequately protect against too much parochialism. c. Specifically, the worst -case scenario is one in which all three districts elect councilmembers who are too parochial. This would still result in a minority (3 of 7 votes) and a majority vote would only be achievable by convincing at least one at -large councilmember that the citywide good is being appropriately factored in. Since we would have a system that could handle the maximum possible amount of parochialism thrown at it, this no longer makes it a serious concern and certainly not one that would justify denying district voters their basic rights. d. Note that if all four at -large councilmembers ignore district needs, then that is the opposite problem and also one of potential concern. 5. What of the expressed concern that implementing direct democracy in district elections might contribute to changing the city council election system from one that is non -partisan to one that is partisan? a. A partisan election system has three major characteristics, (1) candidates for the general election are selected by registered voters from one political party alone, (2) campaigns most commonly identify the party affiliation of the candidate and (3) political parties may contribute resources to their candidates. Submitted by Commissioner Denning b. A non -partisan election system is one in which (1) candidates are selected by all eligible voters regardless of the voter's party affiliation, (2) candidates are prohibited from identifying their party affiliation in a public way and (3) political parties are prohibited from contributing resources to any candidate. c. Note that the suggested change, i.e., direct democracy in districts, does not change any of the three characteristics listed in b and thus does not impact the non -partisan nature of the process. d. One might speculate that this concern results from a misunderstanding of what constitutes a partisan election system. Whereas individual voters may (and most often do) factor in their political preferences when voting for a candidate, this does not make an otherwise non -partisan election system a partisan one. 6. There are a number of additional public comments that have been noted. a. Comment: "Remember, a district rep is also sworn to represent The City, not just a district." Response: This echoes the concerns about parochialism, concerns addressed above. b. Comment: "Is each district so unique that voters outside the district are not informed enough to make decisions about that district?" Response: It is not appropriate to simply assume that voters outside a district are as informed or more informed than district voters themselves. This is both impossible to assess and contributes to the idea that voters outside the district should "help" district voters with their decisions (paternalism). c. Comment: "Let the district voters sort out who are to be the finalists in the general election. But after that, the exclusionary impulse is moot." Response: This comment again echoes the paternalism inherent to our current system. d. Comment: The slippery slope argument that if we let district voters choose their own representative, then might we decide to exclude district councilmembers from voting on issues outside their district or give them more voting power on issues inside their district. Response: As with all slippery slope arguments, there should be some foundation for raising these concerns. I have not heard anyone suggesting that the relative voting power of councilmembers should vary from issue to issue and of course doing so would badly distort the decision -making process. e. Comment: "The change does not improve city government. Only once in this century has a district candidate won his district only to be then rejected by the overall city, thus making the district's "loser" its eventual winner." Response: One, see the benefits of direct democracy outlined under comments in support of changing the system. These benefits are believed by the experts to have the potential to improve city government. Why would we not want a system that is most likely to achieve those benefits? Two, if only once in this century did district and citywide voters chose differently, then what is the fear of acknowledging and guaranteeing district voters the right to elect their own representative? And three, why does the argument seem to suggest that the time district voters were denied their preferred candidate that that was Ok? Why was that Ok? In summary: 0 If we believe in and support representative democracy, then ... Submitted by Commissioner Denning • We must acknowledge and guarantee one of the basic rights of representative democracy, namely, the right of the people to elect their representative and as ... • The current system does not acknowledge and guarantee this basic right, then the system must be changed to one that does. • In this case, a system that acknowledges and guarantees this basic right is one in which, as the Commission Report states that district councilmembers are chosen "by and from the district'. See page 16 of the report. With respect to the number of council seats and ratio of at -large to district seats: 1. We have a city council with the number of councilmembers (7 members) that is in the range recommended by the Commission Report for a city our size. See page 14 of the report. The proposed change for election of district councilmembers would not affect this number. 2. We also have a mixed system of at -large and district seats. The benefit of a mixed system is summarized in the Commission Report which states, "the mixed system combines the citywide perspective of the at -large councilmembers with the local concerns and accountability of district council members." See page 16 of the report. The suggested change maintains the mixed system. 3. With respect to the ratio of at -large to district seats, the Commission Report states, "Local preference should decide the ratio of at -large to district members. Opinion ranges from favoring a majority being elected at large to a majority being elected by and from districts." 4. So, majority at large or majority by district? a. Majority district seats raises the concern of parochialism, but ... b. Majority at -large seats raises the concern of ignoring district -specific needs. 5. See the discussion about selecting the mayor (Article II, Section 2.06) and how popular election of the mayor may help address this dilemma. Comment: "For Consideration: Ex-Officio UI Student Councilmember Student participation and engagement is another issue in our community. As a consistent presence and major economic driver, addressing and understanding student issues and how they interact with those of other residents. One of our state peer cities, the City of Ames, has created an ex-officio council position for a student representative from ISU. According to the City of Ames, 'The ISU Government of the Student Body appoints a student to serve as the representative of Iowa State University students. This ex-officio student City Council member does not vote, but serves as the voice of student opinion and provides insight on various topics at Council meeting. The student member typically serves for one year." Such a role would be similar to our Student City Liaisons, but would afford students a voice in all non -executive council discussions." Response: I agree that this would be a valuable addition to the council. Potential wording has been added to the Article above. Submitted by Commissioner Denning II. COMMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE II, Section 2.02 Issue for discussion is highlighted in gray. Article II, Section 2.02 Section 2.02. Division Into Council Districts. The council, by ordinance, shall divide the city into three council districts of substantially equal population. These districts are to be designated as council district A, council district B, and council district C. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Comment: The question has been put forward - should we change the number of district seats to four? Thoughts: 1. The only question would be can we identify a significant need to increase the number of district seats to four. 2. If we did so, we would either need to reduce at -large seats by one to maintain seven councilmembers or add one more at -large seat as well to maintain an odd number (to prevent tie votes) and the current at -large majority. 3. As the number of seats recommended in the Commission Report ranges from 3-9 seats, adding more seats than nine would not be recommended lest decision - making become too cumbersome. 4. If no significant need to add a district seat is identified, then changing the number of seats may not be called for. In summary: Unless a need for more district seats is identified, I would favor keeping both the number of seats at seven and the ratio of at -large to district seats at 4:3. Although, remember the dilemma: Majority district seats raises the concern of parochialism, but ... Majority at -large seats raises the concern of ignoring district -specific needs. Submitted by Commissioner Denning III. COMMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE II, Section 2.06 Added language for consideration is provided in red, underlined font and deletions in blue, strikethrough font. Thank you for considering the following. I would support changes along the lines of .... Article II, Section 2.06 Section 2.06. Mayor. A. At the next primary and regular election following the current mayor's term the eligible electors of the city shall elect a mayor at large for a term of four years Immediately following the beginning of the terms of councilmembers elected at the regular city election, the council shall meet and elect from among its members the mayor --and mayor pro tern for a term of two years. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) Not sure if the rirst sentence is the right language if we were to transition from current system to popular election of the mayor. B. The mayor is a voting member of the council, the official representative of the city, presiding officer of the council and its policy spokesperson. The mayor may add items to the city council agenda. The mayor shall present to the city no later than February 28 an annual state of the city message. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015). C. The mayor pro tem shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the mayor and. if a vacancy occurs, shall become mayor for the remainder of the unexpired term. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) The added language is from the Commission Report. However, if we change the mayor's term to 4 years, what if the vacancy occurs very early in the mayor's term. Would we want a special election to cover the unexpired term or wait the next primary/general election to elect someone to finish the term? Comments about popular election of the mayor: It is tempting to assume that this issue is very similar to or identical to the debate on direct democracy in districts (Article II, Section 2.01). With this assumption would come the need to make the exact same arguments and come to the exact same conclusion, whatever that may be. However, this issue is significantly different in that regardless of how the mayor is selected: 1. The mayor's power is the same (1 of 7 votes). 2. The mayor's role as "the official representative of the city, presiding officer of the council and its policy spokesperson" is the same (Article II, Section 2.06.13). 3. The prohibition against holding other elected and appointed city offices is the same (Article II, Section 2.12.A). 4. The enumerated duties and responsibilities of the mayor are the same. For example, presenting the annual state of the city message (Article II, Section 2.06.113). 5. Both systems for selecting the mayor have their benefits and limitations. The Commission Report reads, "More than half of the cities operating with the council- manager form use the direct election at -large alternative. Many cities, particularly Submitted by Commissioner Denning larger ones, believe that this method increases the potential for mayoral leadership by giving the mayor a citywide popular support base." See page 17 of the report. Comparing the two selection methods: Comparing the potential benefits and limitations of the two selection processes is appropriate and neither selection process should be assumed to be infallible. I am currently leaning toward direct election of the mayor largely because of the potential for greater public engagement, a goal/value stated in the Preamble, and the potential to protect against an at -large majority that ignores district needs. A table of potential benefits and limitations of the two methods for selecting the mayor. Elected councilmembers represent the pool of seven candidates for mayor and one is picked from among the seven. Mayor pro tern selected by the council. select A citywide primary provides a pool of two candidates and a citywide regular election selects one of the two. Mayor pro tem selected by the council. Mayoral terms are 2 years. Mayoral terms are 4 years*. Mayor pro tern terms are 2 years. Mayor pro tem terms are 2 years. *The Commission Report recommends that the mayor have the same term as the councilmembers. See page 16. The council might be more likely to select someone from among their ranks with previous council experience, highly valuing that experience. It is difficult to predict the impact of prior council experience on each individual voter's decision, although it would likely be a factor in many cases, and thus to predict how it would affect the net result*. *It should be noted that in popular election of the mayor, there may be candidates without prior council experience who could demonstrate the temperament, knowledge of city governance, experience and skills that would make them a good choice. Selection is by persons most familiar with the skills and talents of the candidates, their fellow councilmembers. Because of the selection process, the mayor is held primarily accountable to the council. A ratio of 4 at -large to 3 district councilmembers does not protect against the worst -case scenario wherein the majority fail to consider district -specific needs. Public comment: Potential for greater civic engagement with the benefit of more people understanding the power, role, and duties/responsibilities of the mayor through mayoral campaigns. Because of the selection process, the mayor is held primarily accountable to the people. Direct election of the mayor at large may be more likely to result in a person who will faithfully consider district needs as well as the citywide good. Submitted by Commissioner Denning Comment: (1) "Have councils made bad choices for mayor? ... (2) Was that because the current structure led to a bad Mayor? ... (3) Conversely, would popular election of the mayor guarantee a good Mayor? Response: (1) eye of the beholder, (2) no and (3) no. This argument is neutral in comparing the two selection systems. Several related public comments: Comment: You should not change the selection method unless you are willing to change the role and authority of the mayor. Response: This is a strawman argument as there is no reason to connect the two. No one is calling for changing the mayor's power (1 of 7 votes), role, or responsibilities. What changes in this case is who vests the authority in the mayor to carry out their additional duties and responsibilities. Moreover, I believe there would be strong consensus that changing the power of the mayor would be a very bad idea! Comment: Unless you want the mayor to have more power, why change the selection process. Response: Again, there is no call to give the mayor more power. The potential reasons for the change on the other hand are outlined in the table above. Comment: If the selection system is endorsed, then we would need to be ready to define the changes in the role and/or power of the mayor and does the council have the authority to do so. Response: No such need will arise and no such authority is relevant because no such changes in mayoral role or power are being considered. Public comments related to concerns about a hidden agenda: Comment: "Changing the role and power of the mayor is a "Trojan horse" meant to eventually alter our city manager/council system." Presumably this relates to the concern about changing our non -partisan system to one that is partisan. Response: The people rather than the council selecting the mayor would not change the non -partisan nature of the election process because (a) mayoral candidates for the regular election would still be selected by the people at large not political parties, (b) these candidates would still be prohibited from running as a member of a political party and (c) political parties would still be prohibited from supporting any mayoral candidate. In addition, there are many cities with the city manager/council system that directly elect the mayor. If the mayor is elected directly by the people, then this has the potential to solve/reduce the dilemma related to the ratio of at -large to district seats. Note that this model includes election of district councilmembers by eligible electors in their district. Mayor — more directly tasked by the people with recognizing both citywide and district needs. 3 at -large councilmembers 3 district councilmembers In summary: Submitted by Commissioner Denning The benefits and limitations of each system largely balance out. My leaning toward popular election of the mayor is based on the potential benefits of greater civic engagement and the potential for achieving an optimal ratio of at -large to district seats, i.e., the best balance between citywide and district -specific needs. It would be preferable, if elected by popular vote, that the mayor serves a 4-year term, lest incumbents spend half their time campaigning. Submitted by Commissioner Denning IV. COMMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE II, Section 2.12 Added language for consideration is in red, underlined font. Thank you for considering the following. The addition is meant to address a comment made by one of the commissioners related to the workings of city employees who were under a different authority than the city council/city manager. It is meant to echo the non-interference language in 2.12.13. This language may need editing by the commissioner who made the point in case it doesn't say what she intended. Article II, Sections 2.12 A. A councilmember may not hold any other city office or be a city employee or elected county official while serving on the council nor hold any remunerated city office or employment for at least one year after leaving the council. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) B. With the exception of the appointment of the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department, which are subject to approval of the city council, neither the council nor its members may dictate, in any manner, the appointment or removal of any person appointed by the city manager. However, the council may express its views to the city manager pertaining to the appointment or removal of such employee. (Ord. 05- 4152, 3-1-2005) C. 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) D. Neither the city council nor its members may dictate to nor influence in any way Public Library and the Iowa City Municipal Airport.