Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-23 Charter Review CommissionI r 1 -4 r111 one �Cup of NAP C� CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Thursday, May 23, 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 05/14/2024 3. Motion to Accept correspondence 4. Review of City Charter: Article II —City Council 5. Discuss Summer Schedule 6. Tentative Meeting Schedule — 2nd Tuesday and 41h Thursday @5:30pm • Tuesday, June 11 (rescheduled to June 17) • Monday, June 17 • Thursday, June 27 • Tuesday, July 9 • Thursday, July 25 7. 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 . 8. 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 May 14, 2024 — 5:30 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL DRAFT Members Present: John Balmer, Susan Craig, John Deeth, Makenzie DeRoo, Matt Hayek, Molly Kucera, Jennifer Patel Members Absent: Gerene Denning, Bijou Maliabo Staff Present: City Attorney Goers, City Clerk Grace (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 Deeth, seconded by Kucera to approve the April 25, 2024, draft minutes as presented. Motion carried 7-0, Denning and Maliabo absent. 3. REVIEW OF DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR PREAMBLE, DEFINITIONS, ARTICLE I: POWERS OF THE CITY City Attorney Goers summarized the proposed changes in the May 9 memorandum which was included in the meeting packet. Chair Balmer suggested getting a consensus from the commissioners in attendance and circle back at a later date when everyone is present to approve. Commissioner Craig asked for clarification as to why the last few words of the original proposal for 1.a was left out of the revised proposal which was "in all aspects of life". Commissioners discussed reasons to include the language. City Attorney Goers noted that he had removed the language due to the phrase "equal opportunity" earlier in the sentence as to not suggest everyone will have equal opportunity in all aspects of life and gave examples. Commissioners discussed options to revise the language. Board members tentatively agreed on the addition of the following language for item number 1.a of the Preamble: Each individual shall have an opportunity to participate in the life of the city, including economic, cultural and intellectual. Goers reviewed the proposed language by Commissioner Denning which included protected classes noting that the protected classes in the Model Charter were not the same as the protected classes in Iowa law and Iowa City Code. Goers stated protected classes are subject to change and have over time and proposed tracking the language in Title 2 of the City Code to the following for the addition of item 1.11b: Discrimination prohibited by Title 2 of this Code shall not be tolerated. The Commission tentatively agreed on the proposed language. Charter Review Commission May 14, 2024 Page 2 The Commission had asked City Attorney Goers to review the Charter to search for uses of the term "Qualified Elector' to see if there was a good reason not to collapse that term into the definition of "Eligible Elector". Goers noted that the term Qualified Elector appeared in the Charter eight times and several times in the City Code stating the understanding of the two different definitions, Qualified Elector as someone who is registered to vote, as opposed to an Eligible Elector as someone who posses all the qualities to be able to register to vote. Goers recommended leaving the definition of Qualified Elector in the Charter. Commissioner Deeth stated his concern for leaving the definition in. There was consensus by the Commission to leave Qualified Elector in the Charter. The Commission also asked City Attorney Goers to review the addition of 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 as follows: 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. Goers stated that Iowa Home Rule, Iowa Chapter 28E, and various federal laws already provide for the opportunity. Goers proposed to exclude the language due to the limitation it creates. There was consensus by the Commission to omit the proposed language. 4. REVIEW OF CITY CHARTER: ARTICLE II: CITY COUNCIL Chair Balmer suggested containing discussion to City Council and leaving Mayor for the next meeting. Balmer thanked Commissioner Deeth and Commissioner Denning for submitting their thoughts which were included in the May 141h meeting packet. DeRoo confirmed that the discussion would focus on Council districts. Commissioner Deeth summarized his submission and presented his view on district representation noting that if the representative body of Councilors were to remain at seven, he felt that two of those positions should be undergrad students from the University of Iowa. Deeth mentioned that there was not a good track record for electing students to the City Council, noting the permanent community will not vote for student candidates. Deeth would like to see smaller districts where smaller areas are voting on the candidates. Deeth gave an example of a city Council model in Wisconsin with a 25-member Council that was elected from small wards. Deeth stated there is a barrier of having to win city-wide to sit on the Council. Commissioners discussed the following: student districts, and the current University Student Government Liaison to the City Council. Vice Chair Kucera feels the voting should fall to the entire City and that if students want to run for City Council they should campaign. Kucera also stated that trying to elect a student position could become difficult over the years as they are being asked to vote on city-wide policies that would affect everyone long term. Kucera also questioned the definition of student as there are many different kinds of students in Iowa City. The Commission had additional discussion of students and student focus. Commissioner Craig stated she was not interested in going beyond seven City Councilors and was not in favor of carving out a seat for a particular group. Commissioner Patel would like to see candidates elected from the districts and suggested nine members. Commissioners discussed participation in government based on the number of Councilors, the student community, and the University student government. Commissioner Hayek agreed that seven is a good number and when you add to that you expand the logistics and cost to the community. Hayek disagreed that students are not represented and have the Charter Review Commission May 14, 2024 Page 3 same right of representation as anyone else if they are living in the City limits. The lack of participation was also noted unless there is a particular issue of interest. Hayek is concerned that there are other groups that do not get represented and where do you draw the line when creating a seat for a group. The consensus among the commissioners present was not to create seats on Council for the student population. Commissioner Patel mentioned it is more comfortable to go to a Councilor that you are familiar with and is from your district rather than going to the entire Council. Chair Balmer asked the Commission to discuss the proposal to have the district candidates only elected by the district residents. Balmer stated when there is a primary election the district residents vote on the district candidates but when it comes to the general election the entire city votes on all of the candidates. Balmer gave some history of when the city Council went from five to seven members and having geographic balance is important. Balmer pointed out the last few elections where candidates went uncontested and questioned how to spread awareness and increase participation in elections. Deeth reviewed some of the information from the past election information provided by Chair Balmer in the meeting packet. Commissioner Patel discussed the lower costs, connections that can be made in district elections, and concentrated minorities that can be easily overridden by the city-wide voters. Commissioner DeRoo stated she would have concerns of parochialism if a Councilor only has to answer to those within the district they were elected. DeRoo also stated there are many issues that affect the entire city and how does that affect the decision of a district representative if it is not positive for that district — those issues could be hard to balance. Commissioners discussed the history of districts, balancing the populations within the districts, and district mapping using suitable polling places. Commissioner Hayek discussed election participation and city representatives versus district representatives being responsive to the entire community. Commissioners discussed the confusion between primary and general elections for the public, city representation, campaign costs. Individual commissioners expressed their views. Chair Balmer noted the two absent members and stated that the Commission would revisit this topic at a later date to finalize opinions. Balmer stated discussion regarding the Mayor would be held at the next meeting on Thursday, May 23rd 5. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE Chair Balmer requested changing the June 111h meeting date to June 171h due to an absence. Board members in attendance agreed to this change. City Attorney Goers noted he would be out of town but would send a representative from his office to the meeting. Commissioner Hayek noted he would be absent for the July 9 meeting and asked if available meeting dates could be provided to the Commission. City Clerk Grace will check meeting room availability and bring those dates to the next meeting. Commission Kucera asked if the summer schedule could be discussed at the next meeting. Grace will add the item to the agenda. Chair Balmer noted that the Charter Review Commission is a product of the City Council but emphasized they are independent and should be making decisions on their own and suggested not conversing with Councilors until such time as there is a final product. Balmer noted correspondence received from Councilor Dunn but stated they should be making their own decisions. City Attorney Goers clarified that correspondence from a Councilor would be just like any correspondence from the public and if they wished to communicate with the Commission they may do so. 6. COMMUNITY COMMENT: Charter Review Commission May 14, 2024 Page 4 No one appeared. Chair Balmer noted he had spoken with the City Clerk and asked how meeting information was communicated to the media stating there had not been any media coverage. Balmer asked how they could get the media to report on the meetings, more public participation and asked for suggestions. Vice Chair Kucera asked if theS City would be able to put information on the website asking for participation and information about the City Charter and Commission. City Attorney Goers mentioned the City has a Communications Department that could help with getting the word out if that is what the Commission wanted. Commissioners discussed suggestions of information to provide. City Attorney Goers asked commissioners if they were comfortable with staff working with Communications or if they wanted to review at the next meeting. Commissioners agreed to let staff work with Communications. Vice Chair Kucera suggested having meetings at the Library once they have a draft product to solicit feedback from the public. Commissioner noted they are on the front end and have only had a few meetings suggesting an open house at a later date. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Deeth, seconded by Kucera to adjourn the meeting at 6:43 P.M. Motion carried 7-0, Denning and Maliabo absent. Charter Review Commission April 9, 2024 Page 5 Charter Review Commission - 2024 ATTENDANCE RECORD NAME TERM EXP. A O N A A O �? N A A N N N N John Balmer 4/1/25 X X X Susan Craig 4/1/25 X X O/E John Deeth 4/1/25 X X X Gerene Denning 4/1/25 X X X Mackenzie DeRoo 4/1/25 X X O/E Matt Hayek 4/1/25 X X X Molly Kucera 4/1/25 X X X Bijou Maliabo 4/1/25 X X X Jennifer Patel 4/1125 X X X Kev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a member From: Matt Hayek To: Charter Review Commission Date: May 19, 2024 Re: Selection of Mayor Dear Fellow Commissioners, As we go through our review of Article II of the Charter, I want to share some thoughts regarding Iowa City's long-established procedure for selecting its mayor. I served on two city commissions between 2002 and 2006. 1 was then elected to the council in 2007 and re-elected in 2011. During my time on the council, I was selected to be mayor three times. My experience with City Hall — first as a commission member interacting with the council, and later as a city councilor myself— informs how I think about the mayoral selection process. While Iowa City is not the only community in Iowa to use this practice, having the council select the mayor is somewhat unique. Much is unique about our community. My approach to the issue is to ask myself, "is our mayor selection process good for City Hall and good for the community?' My answer is an unqualified "yes." For me this boils down to five main reasons First: council selection of the mayor strengthens the council. Under our system, the true power of the council rests with the full council and not with the mayor. The mayor has limited powers and has been described as a "first among equals." Decisions are always the product of a majority vote. The mayor has no ability to veto council decisions or direct city staff to take actions not otherwise supported by the council. The mayor must act within the limits of what a majority of the council has decided. This flattens the power dynamic on the council such that authority rests with the full council, consisting of at least four councilors. This broadens representation from the public and strengthens the council as a governing body. Second: council selection of the mayor Promotes diplomacy. Because the council decides the mayor position every two years, a mayor learns quickly that respect for and support of fellow councilors is imperative. This incentivizes the mayor to facilitate collaboration, support participation by all councilors, and lead respectful and productive meetings. It also encourages the mayor to treat the public, city staff, and other government representatives with respect. In a sense, the other six councilors are keeping an eye on the mayor and have recourse if the mayor falls short of expectations, or acts as a lone ranger, or pursues an agenda that a majority of the council does not support. I think our system causes the mayor to be more diplomatic, and this benefits both City Hall and the community at large. Third: council selection of the mayor ensures experience. I am not aware of an Iowa City mayor in recent history taking over the position without having prior council experience. This is important, as the reality of running a city looks very different after one is elected to office and is making decisions as an elected official. It is eye opening, once "on the inside," to experience the limits of what local government can do, how state and federal laws impact decision making, how budgets work, what the policy considerations are, and so forth. Direct election of the mayor could result in a political newcomer — whose only experience is as a candidate — immediately taking over leadership of the council. In contrast, every Iowa City mayor in the last half century that I can think of had prior experience on the council and a working knowledge of City Hall. This is helpful for any new mayor, and it benefits the full council. In addition, the mayor is by definition someone who has gained the confidence of his or her fellow councilors and has established a degree of trust within City Hall. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Fourth: the Iowa City mayor participates in decision making. In many communities that directly elect the mayor, the position of mayor is non -voting. It has never made much sense to me to have a mayor who does not vote. The mayor possesses as much information as anyone else on the council, and often more information because the mayor usually has to prepare even harder for meetings in order to run them effectively. Having to vote for or against a measure exposes the mayor to the same public scrutiny as the other councilors. Also, under Iowa law, a mayor who votes on a measure loses the power to veto it. I am not a fan of mayoral vetoes, as I think that rests too much power in a single elected official. Our system empowers the mayor to guide each council meeting, soliciting input from staff, the public and fellow councilors. It then requires the mayor to vote on a measure, with no more (and no less) power than each of the other six councilors. This is healthy. Fifth: council selection of the mayor is good for staff. Outside of council meetings, mayors spend time with city staff, in particular the city manager. They jointly meet with other officials, including for example University of Iowa leadership, officials from other governments, nonprofit groups, and organizations such as the Metro Coalition, which represents Iowa's larger cities at the State Capitol. Under our system, the mayor's influence over city staff is limited by the fact that the mayor answers to the council. At all times a member of city staff knows that the mayor cannot push an agenda or pressure staff for action without the support of a majority of the council. If the majority of council wants to go left, but a mayor claims he or she has a mandate to go right, city staff is forced to navigate a difficult political dynamic, and this can cause harm inside City Hall. Our system provides more consistency, as the mayor is governed by the policy decisions of the entire council, even outside of council meetings when interacting with city staff or other officials. It is my understanding that Iowa City has selected the mayor from within the council for 70 years or more. The Charter, which carried this practice forward, is itself almost 50 years old. To me it is significant that each and every Charter Review Commission has, in the years since the Charter was first enacted, decided to maintain our mayor selection procedure as a core element of our government. I think I know why: it works well for the community. LATE HANDOUTS - THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WERE DISTRIBUTED AT THE MEETING Ashley Platz From: Eric Goers Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 4:09 PM To: Ashley Platz Subject: FW: Suggestions for Charter Review from Rod Sullivan From: Rod Sullivan <rodsullivan29@gmai1.com> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 5:30 PM To: *IC Charter Review Commission <ICCharter@iowa-city.org> Subject: Suggestions for Charter Review from Rod Sullivan RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** *Suggestions for Iowa City Charter Review Below are the things I feel are most imperative, listed in order of importance: Maintain the referendum process: Iowa City has a limited referendum process. By "limited," I mean there is an extensive list of things for which no referenda are allowed. This includes anything having to do with taxes, salaries, or anything in any way financial. Obviously, this is extremely limiting. But I find it important that the voters have some say outside of elections. I love that Iowa City has at least some minimal ways in which the public can be heard. I think it is extremely important to maintain this process. 2. District votes for District Councilors: Iowa City has one of the worst and most convoluted systems imaginable in terms of who gets to vote in District Council elections. Under the current system, only District voters vote in a primary; all voters get to vote in the general election. This is extremely confusing, and frankly, unnecessary. District voters should be the only voters in District elections. I know some voters feel they should be able to vote on every seat, but that is why At -Large seats exist. Hell, that is why Districts exist! This change would clean things up and strengthen Districts. 3. Directly elect the Mayor: Even though the Mayor position is not dramatically different from that of the other councilors, it still means something. The public cares who represents them to the